UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST

SLAVERY AND COMMUNITY IN THE 1ST CENTURY C. E.:

A READING OF THE LETTER TO PHILEMON AND ITS CONTEXTUAL

IMPLICATIONS

MAXWELL KOJO TSIBU

2021
© Maxwell Kojo Tsibu

University of Cape Coast

 UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST

SLAVERY AND COMMUNITY IN THE 1ST CENTURY C. E.:

A READING OF THE LETTER TO PHILEMON AND ITS CONTEXTUAL

IMPLICATIONS

BY

MAXWELL KOJO TSIBU

A thesis submitted to the Department of Religion and Human Values of the

Faculty of Arts of the College of Humanities and Legal Studies, University of

Cape Coast in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Doctor of

Philosophy

JULY 2021
 DECLARATION

Candidate’s Declaration

I hereby declare that this is the result of my original work apart from scholarly

works cited or quoted and that no part of it has been presented for another degree

in this university or elsewhere.

Name: Maxwell Kojo Tsibu

Signature: ........................................... Date: ...............................................

Supervisors’ Declaration

We hereby declare that the preparation and presentation of the thesis were

supervised in accordance with the guidelines on supervision of thesis laid down

by the University of Cape Coast.

Principal Supervisor’s Name: Rev. Prof. Eric Nii Bortey Anum

Signature: ..................................... Date: ....................................................

Co-Supervisor’s Name: Rev. Dr Sr. Alice Matilda Nsiah

Signature: ..................................... Date: ....................................................

ii
 ABSTRACT

The quest to incarnate Christianity in a multi-cultural society—to contend with

dilemmas of modern slavery—has called for an interpretation of the Bible able

to respect the text and engage with the culture. Given the interpretative

challenges the Letter of Philemon poses to biblical scholarship, the study set out

to analyse the text as a ‘rhetorical discourse’ situated in the socio-economic

context of the 1st Century CE and to identify the insights that may be gained

from the comprehension and appropriation of the text in the contemporary

Ghanaian context where different forms of modern slavery are still present and

often justified as part of the traditional culture.

The study employed the tri-polar exegetical model of African contextual

interpretation as its theoretical framework to bridge the gap between the

academic and popular reading of the biblical text and thereby make Scripture

‘relevant’ in the Ghanaian community. Empirical data was collected through

personal interviews and secondary data were retrieved from journals, legal

documents as well as institutional policies and reports on modern slavery in

Ghana.

The findings revealed that modern forms of slavery are incompatible

with the Christian faith and Ghana’s legal system, yet the menace is wide

present and tolerated in our Christian communities. The study also discovered

Christocentric values and actions indispensable for subverting abusive master-

servant relationships. Accordingly, the study calls on Ghanaian contemporary

churches to employ advocacy and diplomacy to denounce any hidden form of

modern slavery in the community as part of their socio-religious responsibility.

In particular, religious leaders should partner with frontline institutions in the

fight against modern slavery.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I express profound gratitude to my supervisors, Rev. Prof. Eric Nii Bortey Anum

and Rev. Dr Sr. Alice Matilda Nsiah, for the corrections, feedback, constructive

criticisms and the sacrifices they made to help shape this work. Your patience,

encouragement, adjustments and subtle promptings encouraged me to complete

this work. I have particularly enjoyed God’s grace through your instrumentality.

I appreciate very deeply and sincerely the authorities of the RHV

Department for the uncommon love, encouragement, and more importantly,

uncountable privileges that were given to me to help develop my potential. You

always make me feel more than a mere student. Some of you bought me relevant

materials whenever you travelled overseas. I also like to express gratitude to

GABES for providing me with an academic environment full of seasoned biblical

scholars for insightful dialogues on the letter of Philemon and slavery. I am

particularly thankful to Dr Kojo Okyere of UCC, Prof. Nicoletta Gatti of the

University of Ghana and Dr Michael Dei of Valley View University for the eye-

opening suggestions I received during the Graduate Seminar at Akrofi-Christaller,

Akropong.

Again, I am thankful to Dr Boakye-Yiadom and Prof. K. T. Oduro for

spurring me on through All Saints Educational Trust/University of Cape Coast

All Saints Scholarship. Finally, a special thanks to my family and friends for all

the prayers and various support you have offered me. Because of you, my viscera

are constantly refreshed in every circumstance. May God bless you and cause

you to do ‘more.’

iv
 DEDICATION

To Mercy Darkwah, unto you, I owe my very self.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Content Page

DECLARATION ii

ABSTRACT iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv

DEDICATION v

TABLE OF CONTENTS vi

LIST OF FIGURES xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study 1

Statement of the Problem 12

Research Objectives 13

Research Questions 14

Significance of the Study 14

Methodological Considerations 15

Interpretive paradigm 16

Hans- Georg Gadamer’s thoughts on hermeneutics 18

Deductions from Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics 25

A tri-polar reading model to contextual hermeneutics – Jonathan Draper 26

First pole: Distanciation 28

Second pole: Contextualisation 30

Third pole: Appropriation 32

Literature Review 32

Conceptual Review – hermeneutics, exegesis and meaning 33

vi
African Biblical Hermeneutics 40

Rhetorical criticism 44

Interpretive views on Philem 57

The purpose of Philem 70

Rhetorical techniques in Philem 72

Organization of the Study 77

CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND TO SLAVERY IN 1ST CENTURY

C. E. GRECO-ROMAN WORLD

Introduction 79

What is slavery in Greco-Roman society? 79

Forms of slavery in Greco-Roman 1st Century CE 83

Ways into Slavery in the Grace-Roman world 85

The runaway slave (fugitivus servus) 88

Classical Philosophers and the Subject of Slavery 92

Manumission/Liberation and Freedom 95

The welfare of slaves in Greco-Roman societies 101

Spirituality and Religious Liberty of Slaves 103

Conclusion 104

CHAPTER THREE: DISTANCIATION: AN EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS

OF PHILEM

Introduction 108

Translation of the text 108

Philem as a discrete literary unit 111

The rhetorical situation of Philem 112

The rhetorical species and stasis of Philem 115

vii
Analysis of the Structure of Philem 118

The epistolary structure of the text 119

Rhetorical structure of Philem 120

Epistolary introduction (vv. 1-3) 122

The insinuatio (vv. 8-9). 132

The propositio (v. 10) 135

The probatio (vv. 11-16) 137

The peroratio (vv. 17-22) 145

Epistolary Conclusion (vv. 23-25) 153

Evaluating the rhetoric of Philem 154

Core Labels from the Reading of Philem 157

Conclusion 167

CHAPTER FOUR: CONTEXTUALISATIONS OF PHILEM

Introduction 170

The Moravian missionary group 171

Opportunity for slaves to develop themselves in St. Thomas 176

Fellowshipping among enslaved, freed and free Christians in the West

Indies 179

Baptism and its impacts on social boundaries between slaves and

slaveowners 180

Treatment of slaves in the West Indies Islands: The White planters and the

Moravians 185

The welfare of Slaves in 18th Century West Indies 187

The spirituality of slaves in the West Indies 188

Pleading to a higher authority 190

viii
Freedom/manumission of the slave in the 18th Century Moravian theology 192

Modern slavery: An Overview of the Ghanaian Context 194

Contextualisation of Philem in the Ghanaian Domestic Milieu 197

Conclusion 212

CHAPTER FIVE: APPROPRIATIONS OF PHILEM

Introduction 215

Pragmatic usages of Philem in St. Thomas, 18th Century West Indian

context 215

Modern slavery and the Legal System of Ghana 218

Ghana Government’s efforts at curbing modern slavery 218

Domestic Violence and Victims Support Unit (DOVVSU) 223

Ghana’s National Human Rights Institution (CHRAJ) 224

Roles of religious bodies in combating modern slavery 224

Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and modern slavery 226

Appropriation of Philem in Ghanaian Christian households 227

Welfare and educational opportunities for maids/fictive children 229

Clemency and reconciliation in Christian households 237

Spirituality of maids/fictive children/labourers 243

Freedom and dignity of fictive children/maids/labourers 248

Implications of the Dialogic Encounter Between Text and Context 254

Conclusion 257

CHAPTER SIX: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction 259

Summary 259

ix
Findings 269

Conclusions 285

Recommendations 288

REFERENCES 294

APPENDICES 319

APPENDIX A: Interview Guide 319

APPENDIX B 320

x
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Gadamer’s hermeneutical circle 21

2 The key elements of Gadamer’s hermeneutic circle 22

3 A putative division of Philem (Adapted from Wendland, 2008) 111

xi
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABH African Biblical Hermeneutics

AHTU Anti-Human Trafficking Unit

AHSTIP Anti-Human Smuggling and Trafficking in Persons

Unit

B.C.E. Before Common Era

CE Common Era

CBS Contextual Bible Study

CHRAJ Commission on Human Rights and Administrative

Justice

CNN Cable News Network, Inc.

CPC Child Protection Compact

DOVVSU Domestic Violence and Victim Support Unit

ENA End Now Africa

EMS End Modern Slavery

IITA International Institute of Tropical Agricultural

ILO International Labour Organisation

NT New Testament

Philem The letter to Philemon/Paul’s letter to Philemon

RSV Revised Standard Version

TIP Trafficking in Person

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

UNICEF United Nations International Children Emergency

Fund

WACAP West African Cocoa and Commercial Agriculture

Programme

WFCL Worst Forms of Child Labour

xii
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

This chapter gives an overview of the entire study. It situates the research in

context and gives justifications for the chosen topic. It also considers how the

study was done, particularly the methodology and interpretive assumptions

underpinning the exegetical evaluation of the chosen text.

Background of the Study

In recent times, the world has shown deep concern about the phenomenon of

modern slavery. Governments, civil societies and development partners in

different parts of the world have expressed grave concerns about the devastating

impacts of contemporary slavery on human dignity and society. The concept,

‘modern slavery,’ is employed in international and academic discourses as “an

umbrella term covering multiple forms of exploitation which ‘includes but is

not limited to human trafficking, forced labour, debt bondage, serfdom, children

working in slavery or slavery-like conditions, domestic servitude, sexual

slavery and servile forms of marriage” (United Nations, 2014). It has been

recorded that over 215 million children are exploited in various economic

activities currently and that 60 per cent of them work in the agricultural sector,

including fishing and aquaculture (International Labour Organisation [ILO],

2018).

ILO (2018) defines child labour as any activity or “work that deprives

children of their childhood, potential, dignity, and that which is harmful to

physical and mental development.” It denotes activities that deny children the

freedom to attend school, truncate their schooling, or force them to combine

schooling with unreasonably extensive and demanding work. Forced child

1
labour includes “situations in which the child is in the custody of someone other

than an immediate family member who requires the child to perform work that

financially benefits that person, as well as situations in which a parent provides

a child to others who subject the child to forced labour in which the child does

not have the option of leaving” (ILO, 2018). The disturbing trends of child

slavery and exploitation stick a direct blow at the heart of humanity. Although

modern slavery occurs in many areas of Ghana’s economy, its pervasiveness in

the fishing and cocoa industry has been of grave concern to the Government,

development partners and the civil society, at large.

In spite of the efforts made over the last decade by the Ministry of

Gender, Children and Social Protection and other non-governmental bodies,

child labour and exploitation, an aspect of modern slavery, is still widespread

across several domains in both urban and rural settings. According to survey

research on child labour conducted in Ghana by Tulane University in 2015, over

880,000 children are employed in precarious conditions in the cocoa production

industry.

Of Ghana’s total child population in cocoa-growing areas (2,236,124),

a total of 957,398 (42.8%) children were estimated to be working in
cocoa production, of which 918,543 (41.1%) were child labourers
working in cocoa production, and 878,595 (39.3%) were estimated to be
engaged in hazardous work in cocoa production (Tulane University,
2015).

Indeed, the dark side of cocoa production in Ghana and Ivory Coast is hard to

miss. Though farming and aquacultural activities constitute a traditional means

of giving apprenticeship and livelihood to many people, they can be abusive and

exploitative to vulnerable workers. Some of these child labourers are often not

remunerated for their labour because they are ‘used’ on farms owned by their

2
relations. They may also be hired on commercial plantations or engaged as

labourers of a migrant family unit. Unfortunately, these children may become

victims of child trafficking syndicates to offset the debts of their employers and

are often treated as slaves.

On March 1st, 2019, Cable News Network, Inc. (CNN) broadcasted a

documentary titled, “Troubled Waters: Freeing the Child Slaves of Lake Volta,”

subsequent to similar publications confirming the pervasive reality of child

trafficking and child slavery in fishing communities located along the Lake

Volta in Ghana. The producers of the documentary estimated that about 20,000

children live in slavery on Volta Lake. Most of them come to the lake from

hundreds of miles away. The CNN documentary crew observed that:

children as young as five are sold to human traffickers and made to work
as fishermen for up to 12 hours a day, seven days a week. They are
beaten. They are abused. They eat scraps off the table and sleep on the
dirt. Some get drowned when forced to dive under the water to untangle
fishing nets. These forgotten children become yet another anonymous
corpse resting at the bottom of the lake. When they die, no one is there
to grieve for them, and no one is punished for enslaving and endangering
them. The only loss is a financial one. The fisherman who bought the
child had paid the price of a cow to turn him into a slave (Freeing the
child slaves of Lake Volta, CNN Freedom Project, 2019).
The shocking discovery of CNN comes a decade after the ILO conducted an

extensive study of the involvement of children in activities on Lake Volta. The

ILO study revealed that some parts of children’s work on the lake occur under

hazardous and abusive conditions. Although the Government of Ghana took

measures through social intervention programmes to address social problems

like those faced by children on islands and riverine areas of Lake Volta, the

menace persists. The 2019 CNN documentary is another timely reminder that

stakeholders, government, international bodies and researchers have to do more

3
to address the issue of child abuse and exploitation in economic and domestic

ventures.

In a reaction to the CNN documentary, Mr Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, the

Government’s Information Minister at the time, confirmed that the incidence of

child labour and mistreatment in traditional apprenticeship and fosterage

arrangements in areas on and around Lake Volta is ‘heart-breaking stories to the

Government and the people of Ghana. He reiterated that the Government of

Ghana admits the sad reality of child slavery and the complexities involved in

curbing the situation.

It is often assumed that child labour and exploitation occur only in the

agricultural and fishing sectors. However, social workers have indicated that the

phenomenon is even more prevalent in households with fictive children, maids,

and bonded labourers. The nature of cruelty or inhumane treatments suffered by

many maids and fictive children in domestic homes (both in the villages and

cities) is not different from the sad realities of child labourers on cocoa

plantations and in the fishing sector. Unfortunately, compared with child

exploitation in economic ventures, these exploitative relationships in domestic

contexts have not attracted the interest and attention of government and non-

governmental bodies. These ‘hidden’ forms of (modern) slavery incompatible

with the Christian faith and with the contemporary Ghanaian system but

widespread and often tolerated in our Christian communities sustained my

motivation to engage the traditional Ghanaian value with the biblical text in an

effort to shape a unique and authentic Christianity resulting from the

understanding of the worldview as they are confronted with the biblical

teaching.

4
 In the face of the rampant instances of the worst and most hazardous

forms of child labour (including child slavery and trafficking) in a country

depicted as “incurably religious” (Plavoet & Rinsum, 2003), there is an urgent

need for interrogating the various meanings Ghanaians draw from biblical texts

on master-slave relationships and the applications they make thereof. Even

though Early Christianity did not respond to slavery consistently, an insight into

how it negotiated this complex reality may offer significant reflections for

today’s Christians in their communities.

This research focuses essentially on the nature of the master-servant

relationship in domestic households. It is imperative to investigate how the

freedom, education, welfare and human rights of maids and fictive children are

prioritised in traditional fosterage and economic arrangements. In addition, one

needs to know the challenges confronting both parents and children in master-

subordinate relationships and how they can be addressed. The objective here is

to explore how Paul repudiates human exploitation in the peculiar social

institution of slavery in the letter of Philemon (Philem, hereafter). It also seeks

to draw implications for transforming impaired master-servant relationships,

which often lead to child labour, child trafficking, and bonded labour in our

time.

The study emphasises the rhetoric tools employed by Paul to project the

value of a transformative relationship in domestic and economic ventures that

honour the name of God and the church. In addition, the study seeks to draw

resources from the Bible to evaluate the difficulties and challenges arising from

domestic relationships, which often turn out to be abusive, exploitative or win-

lose ventures for the vulnerable party (i.e., the fictive child, maid or employee).

5
Slavery conventions have confronted Christians since the 1st Greco-Roman

period.

Christianity developed in a setting where slavery was a typical

component of the everyday landscape. According to Keith Hopkins’ (1978)

estimates, at the end of the 1st Century B.C.E., the Roman Empire had a slave

population of over two million out of a population of about six million people.

Many of these slaves became Christians and ‘fellowshipped together’ with their

masters in the local assemblies. Thus, from the very beginning of Christian

literature, Christian writers—albeit their socially peripheral location—wrestled

with the social realities of enslavement phenomenon in the ecclesial context.

In Philem, Paul contends with a controversial domestic matter between

a Christian patron and his slave in the local community. Different hypotheses

have been advanced to throw light on the exact situation and intended purpose

behind this eponymous letter. Despite the insights previous studies have been

undertaken to clarify the message of this letter, one could argue that there is

more to contend with.

The “runaway hypothesis”—which has been dominating the

interpretation of Philem for a long time — states that Onesimus, a slave owned

by Philemon, was “unprofitable” (achrēston, v. 11) in the past and had

consequently fled from his master (echōristhē, v. 15) after he had robbed him

(ēdikēsen, v. 18). It is said that Onesimus stole some small items from the

household to finance his journey. As a result, Onesimus either of your own

accord or fortuitously fell in with the apostle Paul, who catechised him into the

Christian faith (v. 10). Paul, who had been the appreciative beneficiary of

Onesimus’s past services (v. 13), now appeals to Philemon not only to pardon

6
his previously insubordinate slave but to receive him as a comrade in the Lord

(v. 16) (Nordling, 1991, p. 97). Traditionally, this hypothesis has served as a

hermeneutical lens for the whole epistle.

The origin of the runaway hypothesis is generally traced to John

Chrysostom in the fourth century. Modern commentators who have read Philem

in the light of this theory include John Barclay (1991), Joseph Fitzmyer (2000)

and Peter O’Brien (1982). For them, it was a common act for slaves to run away

from their masters to gain their liberty in the first-century Greco-Roman world.

Onesimus was on the run because he had robbed his master. The reason is

simple: if Onesimus were indeed a fugitive and did something wrong to

Philemon, it would be natural to infer that Paul’s intent was to ask for

forgiveness and at most, which may be more than what Paul asked for (verse

21), manumission for Onesimus. Historically, Pliny the younger’s letter to

Sabinianus has often been cited to support the view that Philem belonged to the

same type of letter asking for forgiveness.

However, the hypothesis appears to be biased against the slave. In the

letter, Paul does not depict Onesimus as having stolen from the master and ‘ran

away.’ Verse 18, among others, is in contention here. It has largely been

interpreted to suggest that Onesimus had committed a theft offence. However,

the same verse submits to another interpretation, perhaps more convincing than

the alleged theft offence attributed to Onesimus. It could be said that Paul is

employing a rhetorical tact in verse 18 just to indicate that the slave’s deed (i.e.,

running away from servitude) in itself constituted a financial loss or offence to

the master. Thus, Paul simply acknowledges that Philemon may have suffered

some loss due to the service Onesimus should have provided in the household.

7
 Similar views are held by Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke (2000) who

propose that the interpretations of Onesimus as a slave who has done something

wrong to Philemon are biased by the interpreters. They further point out that

most interpreters are established church leaders or scholars who easily choose

to stand on the side of Philemon to explain the letter. These criticisms were

supported by the findings from Peter Garnsey (1999) that the proposer of the

runaway hypothesis, John Chrysostom, shows the same bias against slaves as

other thinkers in the same period. He argues, “John Chrysostom says that slaves

were every bit as bad as they were made out to be, and he even claims

endorsement from the slaves themselves for this view” (Garnsey, 1999, p. 81).

Accepting the fugitive hypothesis gives us no room to consider some

possible mistreatment that might have influenced the slave to take to his heels.

We cannot simply write off this theory since it occupies a dominant role in the

interpretation of Philem. However, it can be revised to give room for conjectures

about the ordeals slaves suffered at the hands of masters in the first century CE.

This will give us a fair hearing to both parties in master-servant relationships

regarding their experiences and views on this social arrangement.

Sara Winter (1987) and Craig Wansink (2010) have also argued that

Onesimus, having been sent as a representative of his owner and the house-

church at Colossae to bring Paul “food and services,” delayed to return on time.

Hence Paul wrote this letter to beseech the master not to penalise the slave and

make an additional request for Onesimus to be released from his duty so that he

might come to serve him in evangelism. This interpretation of dispatched slave

is not convincing, as it glosses over too much of the elusive propositions of

Philem, and it hardly explains why Onesimus, a “useless” pagan slave, would

8
have been dispatched by Philemon or the Colossian congregation on such an

important task: to attend on Paul. Again, if Philemon or the church had indeed

dispatched Onesimus as their representative, then it is difficult to comprehend

the reason why Paul uses the past passive verb echōristhē in verse 15. Since

echōristhē rather implies that Onesimus departed without the permission of his

master, the most likely explanation is that Onesimus was on the run. Upon

meeting Paul, Onesimus was catechised into the Christian faith and became a

source of friendship and service to the apostle (vv. 11-12).

Furthermore, there is the intercessory theory, first advanced by Peter

Lampe (1985) and later supported by Rapske (1991), James Dunn (1996), and

Scott Bartchy (1973). These scholars maintain that Onesimus, who has been in

a domestic dilemma with the master, left home to seek the intercession of a

friend of the master (amicus Domini), hoping that he might be reinstated non-

violently to his former status in the master’s house. They further argue that since

Onesimus fled from his master with the explicit motive of going to solicit Paul’s

service as an intermediary in a domestic dispute between himself and his master,

then he was not a fugitive as posited by the traditional hypothesis. Although the

amicus Domini theory elucidates much of the information in Philem, it is strange

that there is no overt reference to the supposed crime Onesimus committed or

his remorsefulness.

Allan D. Callahan (1997) advances the more tendentious hypothesis that

the letter was prompted by a quarrel between two genetic Christian brothers—

Philemon and Onesimus—because the former had been treating the latter as if

he were a slave. He further argues

nothing in the text conclusively indicates that Onesimus was ever

the chattel of the letter’s chief addressee, and the problem that Paul

9
 sought to address in the letter was not that Onesimus was a real slave
(for he was not), nor that Onesimus was not a blood brother to
Philemon (for he was), but that Onesimus was not a beloved brother
to Philemon (Callahan, 2000, p. 372).

Callahan’s (2000) estranged Christian brothers’ hypothesis could at best be

evaluated as a 19th Century abolitionist line of reasoning against proslavery

advocates who interpreted Philem as a “Pauline Mandate” for keeping others as

slaves. It would, however, be incorrect to assume that Onesimus was not a real

slave in the light of Paul’s thinking. Callahan’s claim contradicts the rhetorical

force of hōs doulon (as a slave) in verse 16 in the Greek text; it stresses the

reading of this verse. As Fitzmyer (2000) rightly points out, the conjunction hōs

cannot be altered to give “a contrary-to-fact nuance.” Again, to assume that

Philemon and Onesimus were “estranged Christian brothers” blatantly negates

the Greek text of Philem since verse 10 implies that Onesimus might not have

accepted the Christian faith before encountering Paul.

One of the problems of previous studies is that they do not make explicit

how their hypotheses are established. Neither the traditional fugitive hypothesis

nor recent proposals such as the intercessory theory of Lampe (1985), the

emissary theory of Winter (1987), and the ‘estranged biological brother’

hypothesis by Callahan (1997) provide interpreters with convincing answers to

the many questions posed by the letter’s ambiguities. Sometimes, one will only

focus on how well the hypothesis can help to fill the gap in interpreting the text.

Away from these interpretive hypotheses, the text of Philem has

influenced slavery practices and conventions from the period of the Church

Fathers through the antebellum era to the present situation of modern slavery.

Particularly in the 18th century, Philem received different contextualisation and

usages by (Christian) slaveholders and (Christian) slaves in British colonies in

10
the New World and the Caribbean islands. However, it is not yet established

whether or not a particular trend of interpretation could be mapped from how

Church Fathers of the 5th century downwards as well as Christian slaveholders

and mission groups that operated in the 17th, 18th and 19th century periods,

interpreted Philem and how these past contextualisations reappear in the

ongoing applications by masters and servants in the present era.

In spite of the historical lacuna between the 21st Century and the 1st-

Century Greco-Roman world and culture, I contend that this ancient letter could

still offer important exegetical insight for handling tensions emanating from

master-servant relations in Christian households in our world today. Justin

Ukpong (2000, p. 6) explains that “the actualisation of the theological meaning

of a text in today’s context is to forge an integration between faith and life and

engender a commitment to personal and societal transformation.” It is further

underscored by Eric Anum (2009, p. 54) that “Africans most of the time would

like to see biblical interpretation as a living exercise which must come into

actual operation in their day-to-day experiences in their lives.” It implies that a

contextual study of Philem can provide some insights for individual and social

transformation in Ghana. Nsiah (2018) rightly remarked that a scholarly

interpretation of the biblical text is pursued first and foremost to transform

human society. African contextual biblical study essentially identifies with the

poor and underprivileged, yet the domestic space where most poor people work

as maids, securities and hired labourers has not been given attention.

Therefore, this study seeks to undertake a contextualised reading on

Philem by incorporating the lived experiences of ordinary readers into the

reading process and drawing transformative lessons for contemporary Christian

11
householders. This can undoubtedly help us see how Paul persuades Philemon

to take up the new brotherhood relationship based on Paul’s ethical thought and

argue against the worldly economic-driven self-centred relationship.

Statement of the Problem

Many research studies have been carried out on Greco-Roman slavery traditions

and early Christians’ responses to religious and domestic tensions (Ip, 2018).

Nevertheless, there is a scanty inquiry into challenges confronting Christian

householders and maidservants, especially regarding their understanding and

usage of biblical passages. As the only epistle in the Pauline corpus dealing with

a concrete domestic incidence involving a slave and a Christian master, Philem

continues to intrigue interpreters on what exactly occasioned this personal letter

and what precisely Paul’s rhetoric aimed at accomplishing. It remains unclear

how Paul handled the tensions arising from a master-slave relationship in a

Christian household without directly attacking the peculiar institution or

disapproving of the keeping of slaves in the emerging community of faith.

Despite its enormous impacts on the interpretation of Philem, the

runaway hypothesis has not yet been subjected to a thorough critical review to

make sufficient room for interrogating how the conduct of a Christian master

(not only the slave) could have led to the supposed tensions and impaired

relationship Paul is seeking to address and reform with the letter. Could it have

been that Philemon, in spite of his public honour and generosity towards the

Christian community, had an unchristian attitude towards his slave? What do

popular anecdotes about Ghanaian Christian benefactors who are unkind and

exploitative towards their employees and house servants tell us about the use of

the fugitive hypothesis in the reading of Philem? How should we interpret the

12
rhetorical structure and argumentative strategies of the letter? What insights can

contemporary Christian householders and employers draw from Paul’s intimate

yet subtle rhetorical appeal in Philem? An attempt to provide carefully

constructed responses to these pertinent questions would significantly

contribute to scholarship on Philem and proffer exegetical reflections to both

Christian masters and their servants in domestic and economic arrangements in

the Ghanaian context. Hence, the study seeks to undertake a meticulous

rhetorical analysis of Philem and how it has been contextualised and

appropriated in different contexts.

Research Objectives

The overall purpose of the study was to examine slavery problems among

Christians through an exegetical reading of Philem to come out with biblical

resources for handling dilemmas of slavery in the Ghanaian community.

Specifically, the study set out to:

1. explore the concept of slavery in the Greco-Roman world.

2. to examine the rhetorical strategies Paul utilises to persuade Philemon.

3. highlight Christo-centric values Paul establishes in Philem which seem

to subvert Greco-Roman slavery practices.

4. look at specific contextualisations of the Philem in West Indies Island

of St. Thomas and Ghanaian communities.

5. evaluate the signs of the appropriation of Philem within the St. Thomas

milieu and Ghanaian Christian households.

6. deduce implications and offer suggestions from the various

contextualisation and appropriation of the text.

13
Research Questions

The main question of the study is: what is the rhetorical response of Paul to

master-slave dilemmas in the early Christian community behind Philem and

which transformative actions does the prophetic voice of the letter enjoin on

Christians in Ghanaian communities today? To be able to attain the objectives

stated above, the following specific questions give direction to the study:

1. What is the nature of slavery in the Greco-Roman world?

2. What rhetorical strategies are employed by Paul to move Philemon to

acquiesce to his plea for Onesimus?

3. Which Christo-centric values and labels are highlighted in Philem to

improve master-slave relationships?

4. What are the contextualisations of Philem in the 18th century West

Indies’ Island of St. Thomas and present-day Ghanaian communities?

5. What are the marks of appropriation of Philem in 18th century St.

Thomas context and 21st-century Ghanaian Christian households?

6. What significant implications can be deduced from the complexities and

tensions arising from the contextualisation and appropriation of Philem?

Significance of the Study

The study brings another perspective to bear on Philem scholarship. Existing

studies have largely evaluated Philem as a plea of forgiveness or reconciliation

on behalf of a runaway slave who was catechised into Christianity (Kreitzer,

2008). Indeed, the life of Onesimus was at stake, considering that he was

traumatised, worried and anxious about the punishment awaiting him. However,

I think there is more to the rhetoric of this letter. Hence, I seek to contend that

Philem puts the Christianity of the primary addressee in the spotlight. Paul does

14
not focus on Onesimus’ pitiful situation more than he does on Philemon’s

personality in the house-church. Philem draws the attention of the gathered

saints to Philemon as if he were to prove the authenticity of his faith before them

in the matter concerning his slave. An investigation into the rhetorical strategies

in Philem will hopefully enable readers to gain deeper insights into the nature

of slavery in the 1st century CE, – as well as into early Christianity’s response

to it.

Our society is confronted with deep-rooted forms of modern slavery and

other forms of human exploitation bordering on master-servant forms of

relationships in the Ghanaian community. This study brings out practical

implications for maintaining a win-win relationship in domestic or economic

arrangements between masters and servants or maids. It also points out selfish

or careless attitudes that breed abuse and exploitation of maids or fictive

children in domestic households. Finally, the study draws attention to Philem as

a salient Christian document that implores Christian masters to consider it

expedient to treat their subordinates with a touch of Christian love and

sensitivity.

Methodological Considerations

This section throws light on the theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of

the study. It specifies the type of research, strategy, philosophy, approaches and

the specific procedure to generate, interpret and communicate knowledge on a

specific parcel of reality. The study adopts interpretivism as its qualitative

paradigm with hermeneutics as the actual interpretive design. It is grounded on

Hans-Georg Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics and the tri-polar contextual

approach to African Biblical Hermeneutics (ABH).

15
Interpretive paradigm

This study is qualitative. It is situated within the interpretive paradigm. This

approach is chosen for the study because of the assumptions that underpin it. In

using a qualitative methodology, the researcher seeks to interpret human

behaviour within its natural setting and what accounts for such behaviour.

Unlike quantitative research which adopts numeric data such as scores and

metrics, the qualitative study investigates the how and why of human behaviour

(Silverman, 2014). The general characteristics of qualitative research

methodology are summarised by Creswell (2009),

Qualitative research is a means for exploring and understanding the

meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem.
The process of research involves emerging questions and procedures,
data typically collected in the participant’s setting, data analysis
inductively building from particulars to general themes, and the
researcher making interpretations of the meaning of the data (p. 8).

An interpretive paradigm has a strong subjectivist underpinning and is

directed by a nominalist ontology and an anti-positivist epistemology. As I set

out to explore an in-depth understanding of slavery within its natural setting

(both in ancient and modern times), I am guided by the ontological view that

understanding every social reality is constructed by the social actor(s) who

experience it. I am also influenced by the epistemological notion that knowledge

is attained directly through experience or indirectly by means of those who have

experienced it. In this vein, the study seeks to understand the challenges

confronting Christian parents and employers and fictive children and

housemaids in the Ghanaian community.

Schwartz-Shea and Yanow (2012) assert that “in interpretive research

design, meaning-making is key to the scientific endeavour: its very purpose is

16
to understand how specific human beings in particular times and locales make

sense of their worlds,” and “because sense-making is always contextual, a

concern with ‘contextuality’ rather than ‘generalisability’—motivates research

practice and design” (pp. 1-11). Interpretive design is open to a collection of

theoretical viewpoints such as phenomenology, phenomenological sociology,

and hermeneutics. (Burrell & Morgan, 1997; Tesch, 1990). The specific design

chosen for the study is hermeneutics, and our primary data is the text of Philem.

Unlike a quantitative design that seeks neutral truth, hermeneutics refuses to

accept the concept of objective certainty by exposing a variety of conceivable

meanings (Smith, 2010).

Hermeneutics is usually termed as a theory of both understanding and

interpretation that offers a researcher both a “philosophy of understanding” and

a “science of textual interpretation” (Farooq, 2018, p. 4). As a philosophy of

understanding, the hermeneutic theory implies that people experience the world

through language and that language serves as a vehicle through which

understanding and knowledge are conveyed (Byrne, 2001).

Historically, hermeneutics has been associated with the interpretation of

ancient and biblical texts and the development of a theoretical framework to

direct and guide such exegetical exercise, a tradition that peaked in the

Reformation era and Enlightenment period. The hermeneutical task was to

determine a method whereby the meaning created by an author in another epoch

and geographical location could be discerned, teased out and transposed so it

would be applicable to the realities of the contemporary age.

However, somewhere in the late 18th and early 19th Century, theorists

such as Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) developed the field of

17
hermeneutics into an all-embracing theory of textual interpretation in general

and as a methodology for the retrieval of meaning in all the ‘human’ or

‘historical’ sciences (Geisteswissenschaften). From that era onward,

hermeneutics would become a broad discipline in the humanities that refers to

a theoretical, more abstract reflection on the process of interpretation and

understanding. Consequently, hermeneutics came to be known as the study of

understanding to decipher meaning (Palmer, 1969). This is because all aspects

of human existence are influenced by how we interpret the world.

Hans- Georg Gadamer’s thoughts on hermeneutics

In terms of influence in the development of 20th-century hermeneutics, Hans-

Georg Gadamer (1900-2002) is debatably the key character eclipsing the other

principal figures such as Paul Ricoeur and Gianni Vattimo. Gadamer

“revolutionised views about the nature of interpretation”, which “influenced the

entire course of interpretive thought” (Porter & Robinson, 2011, p. 74). He was

critical of the Enlightenment’s overreaching claims, asserting that knowledge is

acquired through pure reason with scientific methods. He demonstrated that

understanding goes beyond the limits of method, especially when the

Enlightenment worldview defined knowledge as empirically verifiable facts and

methodologically derived content. In reality, our interrogations are all

conditioned by our environment and bound up with tradition – all of which

influence our understanding.

In his famous work, Truth and Methods, Gadamer (1975) points out that

previous methods for interpreting entities such as speech, text, people, works of

art and all historical events failed to notice that these methods were history

conditioned. In their search for truth, earlier scholars thought that the truth could

18
be sought in a vacuum and thereby forgot that all interpretive entities are

history-bound (bias of one’s being and environment). Early on, Schleiermacher

(1966) has posited that history is a progression of human lives rather than the

collection of ideas of manifestation of lives. Gadamer advanced an alternative

model that underscored the importance of appreciating one’s own

phenomenological pre-understanding, which precedes interpretation and makes

interpretation possible.

Gadamer (1976) contends that understanding goes beyond method or is

beyond “methodological knowledge” (p. 294). The task of hermeneutics is not

to advance a methodology of comprehension but rather to elucidate the

interpretive circumstances in which comprehension occurs. Classical dogmatic

exegetical methodology limits one’s horizon; understanding a text goes beyond

a reproductive process. Thus, the exegete needs to remain open to a creative

engagement with a willingness to question, correct, and revise pre-

understandings.

Whereas the Enlightenment philosophy viewed pre-understandings as

negative, Gadamer argued the positive aspects of the “historical situatedness”

as necessary for the process of understanding. Thus, the active process of

hermeneutical engagement leads to questioning pre-judgments and results in the

dismissal of unfruitful pre-judgments and affirming fruitful ones, moving

toward a fusing of horizons.

Because cultures change over time, Gadamer (1976) argues that while

an interpreter tries to understand a text in its past original context, understanding

itself will be conditioned by the interpreter’s own context. He refers to this

history boundedness of all attempts of interpretation as “the effective historical

19
consciousness.” The historical text or artefact becomes a continuous

manifestation of lived experiences (dasein) rather than a mere representation of

the past. For instance, a text is the making of history that was made at the time.

Similarly, when one considers a text, he/she does so while carrying some pre-

understandings, which emanate from lived experiences and knowledge of the

world (Charalambous et al., 2008). We do not understand by forgetting or

seeking to bracket our own historicity, our prejudgements and prejudices. There

is no value-free interpretation (Gadamer, 1976). One’s pre-understanding

regulates what meaning can be realised in the process of interpretation.

These pre-understandings constitute a fundamental part of the

interpretation procedure. Every textual interpretation starts with the reader

reflecting on his/her existing pre-understandings, which aid in understanding

the meaning of the text. These analyses are based on the ontological

philosophies of Heidegger, who states that to understand the world, one must

‘be in’ or ‘engage with’ the world (Jahnke, 2012). When people experience the

world or submerge themselves in the world, they begin to interpret and

understand it or make sense of it. This subjective encounter with our past

experience is a vital condition for securing truth/meaning.

Understanding, for Gadamer, is an ‘effect’ of history, while

hermeneutical ‘consciousness’ is itself that mode of being that is conscious of

its own historical ‘being effected.’ Effective historical consciousness means that

every interpreter views the past from a particular horizon. Understanding is a

matter of negotiation between oneself and one’s partner in the hermeneutical

dialogue about the matter at issue. However, each interpreter has limited

experiences or “horizons” of understanding because of the historically shaped

20
awareness. Hence one’s present understanding becomes a combination of past

and present. The coming to an agreement with the past and present, Gadamer

(1975, p. 305) calls “the fusion of horizon.” Thus, he constructs understanding

to be a process of the ‘fusion of horizons.’ Understanding is a product of a

dialogic encounter between a text (as an entity) and an interpreter (as a dasein,

a being) that produces profound effects on both actors. Gadamer’s version of

the hermeneutical circle recognises prejudices, revises them, recognises them

again, and revises them in a continual process that never comes to a complete

understanding.

Figure 1: Gadamer’s hermeneutical circle

The circle is represented by: (a) the interpreter’s preunderstandings or

“fore-conception of completeness” is confronted by the unfamiliar, here in a

text, which provokes new questions; (b) as the interpreter explores the

unfamiliar and develops new understandings, then a fusion of horizons

develops. Finally, however, the new understandings stimulate the emerging

questions, and the circle, or spiral, continues.

One’s horizon is affected by his/her pre-understandings. Through

interpretations, we may form or open up new understandings that are distinct

from our pre-understandings. By submerging oneself in the world of the text

21
and sifting out unproductive pre-understandings, the interpreter endeavours to

draw meaning (i.e., fresh perspectives and understandings) and new horizons of

understanding. Therefore, the hermeneutic sphere emphasises the reiterative

nature of the interpretation process and the goal of hermeneutical inquiry “as a

fusion of horizons of the interpreter and the text” (Robinson & Kerr, 2015). The

diagram below shows the key elements of Gadamer’s hermeneutic circle.

Figure 2: The critical elements of Gadamer’s hermeneutic circle

This “circle of understanding is not a methodological circle, but one

which describes the ontological structure of understanding” (Gadamer, 1975, p.

293). Interpretation is viewed as an ongoing process that never ends. Gadamer

(1975) posits that the interpreter cannot arrive at a true interpretation; one

cannot be sure that past interpretations of the text were ‘correct’ because those
22
interpretations also involved a fusion of the text’s horizon and that of the

prejudices of the historical interpreter. Hence, Gadamer contends the view that

there is any final determinacy to interpretation.

For Gadamer (1975), the circuitousness of interpretation is not merely a

methodological process or condition but also an indispensable element of all

knowledge and understanding. Therefore, every interpretation relies on other

interpretations (Schwandt, 2001). Variations in interpretation are tolerable, but

there is no need for an interpretive agreement. The reason is that every

interpreter is distinctive and shaped by their pre-conceptions which generate

distinct readings or interpretations.

Whereas there can be no such thing as objective truth or interpretation

devoid of one’s prejudices, Gadamer (1975) argues that a conscious application

of one’s prejudices can yield an authentic interpretation. For an interpretation

to be authentic in the Gadamerian view, the interpreter must consider his/her

own pre-understanding and their relations to history (of the text). However,

hermeneutics is not just an understanding of the past of the text and its remains

but also is a promotion of our self-understanding. The more one reveals a text,

the more that text reveals him/her. Gadamer (1976) writes:

That is why a hermeneutically trained consciousness must be, from the

start, sensitive to the text’s alterity. But this kind of sensitivity involves
neither “neutrality” with respect to content nor the extinction of one’s
self, but the foregrounding and appropriation of one’s own fore-
meanings and prejudices. The important thing is to be aware of one’s
own bias so that the text can present itself in all its otherness and thus
assert its own truth against one’s own fore-meanings (p. 271)

Therefore, truth is not an exclusive preserve of natural sciences; understanding

is more about experiencing rather than just the act of revealing the intention of

23
the artist or the author. To experience (i.e., a text or work of art) immerses the

experiencer (i.e., the subject of experience) in the world.

A reader can certainly not comprehend what was in the original author’s

mind or completely appreciate the past; nor can the reader fully escape his/her

own pre-understandings drawn from his/her experiences (Gadamer, 2008).

Nevertheless, the reader shares several things in common with the text:

language, tradition and the world. Bringing these concepts together, Gadamer

(1975) describes the interpretation process as involving a dialogue between the

text and the reader/interpreter. “This negotiation climaxes in the fusion of the

horizons of the text (based on the context of the text) and the horizons of the

interpreter (based on the interpreter’s pre-understandings) which leads to an

understanding of the meaning of the text” (Debesay et al., 2008, p. 9).

All understanding is therefore interpretative, involving negotiation

between the familiar and the alien. In other words, all understanding involves

the addition of meaning because understanding is necessarily a dialogical

process that fuses the horizon of the interpreter and the text. However, this

conversation rests on the reader using his/her pre-understandings—drawn from

the reader’s knowledge and experience of the world—to comprehend the

message of the text.

In conclusion, Gadamer’s (1975) hermeneutic theory stipulates that the

art of interpretation necessitates an open-ended and respective dialogue between

the interpreter and a biblical text, as it is passed down to us by the effective

history of tradition. In this dialogue, the interpreter never interprets a text as a

solitary being since we always stand within a living tradition, whose effective

24
history is woven into our own historically affected consciousness. This

consciousness, in turn, guides the questions we put to the text.

By implication, meaning is not a fixed object awaiting recovery but

rather something that changes over time according to how the text is read within

different traditions, by different interpreting communities, in different historical

contexts, over the centuries. In the ensuing dialogue, the text, the interpretive

tradition, and our own horizons of meaning constantly recombine into new

wisdom for living in the present. Gadamer thus develops philosophical

hermeneutics that accounts for the proper ground for understanding the

ontological and all-encompassing nature of the hermeneutical practice.

Deductions from Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics

Every study is somehow contextualised since our pre-understandings reflect our

interests and concerns in a specific context. Gadamer’s thoughts have shaped

biblical interpretation by the discovery of the unknown (de Wit, 2008).

According to Gadamer (1975, p. 61), “something becomes an ‘experience’ not

only in so far as it is experienced but in so far it is being experienced makes a

special impression that gives lasting importance.” Gadamer’s metaphor of

“fusion of horizons” is a valuable concept underpinning this study. Used

initially by Gadamer to describe the limits of understanding due to a given

viewpoint, this metaphor of ‘two horizons’ could be related to the ancient

biblical text and contextualisation (and appropriation) of the text. With regards

to enculturation hermeneutics, there are two horizons: (a) a text is engaged from

(b) the cultural context of the reader. Through a dialogue with the text from

one’s worldview, a fusing of horizons can expand understanding of a biblical

text, which otherwise would be limited by one’s worldview. This hermeneutical

25
idea allows me a particular purview to see which new experiences can be taken

as answers to the silent questions posed by the text.

Finally, in the Gadamerian sense, the autonomy of a text does not imply

a lifeless piece of object which becomes animated by reading. Instead, a text

has its own being (dasein) comprising a compelling historical consciousness.

The text is an embodiment of the writer’s experiences by virtue of his/her

interaction with his/her environment. Allowing the text to be ‘other’ implies

peeling off the (mis)interpretations that have been imposed on the text. In our

reading, the text’s own historical situatedness is allowed to emanate through a

dialogue with the reader. The Enlightenment’s movement away from what used

to be doctrinal bible interpretation to what became a philosophical interpretation

has persistently revolutionised the interpretation of the scriptural text. Under the

influence of Gadamer’s philosophical ideas, my interpretation may not

necessarily yield a doctrinal meaning but would yield a similar or contrasting

meaning of the text that may question the text’s traditional readings. Gadamer’s

theory has inspired other scholars to invent reading models that are sensitive to

both context and text. In the next section, we look at how Jonathan Draper draws

on Gadamer’s ideas to formulate a tri-polar reading model for exegetical reading

of Scripture in Africa.

A tri-polar reading model to contextual hermeneutics – Jonathan Draper

In this study, there are three aspects of the exegetical reading: (a) distanciation,

(b) contextualisation, and (c) appropriation. It must be pointed out that Jonathan

Draper (2001) is not the inventor of these elements of the exegetical process.

However, his extensive elucidation and application of these components in

African contextual hermeneutics are well noted.

26
 Distanciation is a term initially introduced into hermeneutics by Paul

Ricoeur. Ricoeur (1980) used “distanciation” to refer to the state of a text being

autonomous from the author’s intentions. Draper (2001) adapted Ricoeur’s idea

to formulate the first task of the exegetical process. Thus, the first step of

stepping into the world of discourse is by allowing our text (i.e., Philem) to be

different to us – as an alien text intended for the first-century Christian

community in Colossae. Next, contextualisation refers to how people over the

years have related to the discourse offered by the sacred text and the meanings

they put to it. The third stage of the exegetical process is appropriation, where

the reader would explore the practical uses people make from their

understanding or interpretations of the text in particular life situations or

contexts. Appropriation leads to a “fusion of horizons” between the historical

prejudices of the text and reader.

“Contextual exegesis,” Draper (2006, p. 21) avers, “provides a

possibility for a sacred text to be read on its own terms as located in a different

context.” The African reader is always located in-between his/her context and

the sacred text seeking appropriation. Hence, the text and the reader’s context

are the two pivotal elements in meaning production. He re-echoes the central

presupposition of contextual theology that exegetical study is primarily about

the meaning of the text for these days rather than what the text meant to the

people for whom it was written. This implies that the main “goal of the whole

exegesis process is to lead out the meaning of the text as a sacred text for the

faith community in its own context” (Draper, 2006, p. 22). Unfortunately, the

classical Western approach to exegesis with its emphasis on ‘objectivity’ is

27
disinterested in evaluating the implications of one’s reading for the ordinary

reader and society.

In African contextual theology, there is strong attention to the milieu of

the reader and the reading community. This emphasis derives from the belief

that there is no unbiassed or complete meaning to a text or any human

communication. One can only appreciate what is meant in a written or oral

literary piece when that person knows what is going on socially. Language

functions in the ‘context of situation.’ This captures Gadamer’s (1975) concept

of ‘historical consciousness.’

First pole: Distanciation

It is the analytical pole of our tri-polar reading model. Owing to our prejudices

toward the present socio-historical context, Draper (2005) suggests that the ‘tri-

polar reading process must start with distanciation to set the text in its own

specific historical context. By its very nature, biblical texts are “sacred texts”

which serve as ethical standards for faith and life for a particular community.

How a faith community comprehends the sacred text has considerable

implications on the wider community of which it is a fundamental component.

This stage of the exegetical process requires “the readers/reading community to

allow the text to speak for itself by creating space or critical distance between

themselves and the text” (Draper, 2005, p. 155).

As a rule, the text is allowed to be “other,” or different from our concerns

and questions. This is because every text is “rooted in a specific historical,

social, cultural and economic context” addressing questions related to its needs

(Draper, 2001). Therefore, an exegete needs to distance himself/herself from the

reading community to identify the text’s worldview, language, and rhetorical

28
conventions, which are different from our own. Draper (2001) maintains,

“exegesis should consider both the context of the text, and how it came into

being, and the structure of the text, and how it signals meanings and seeks to

manipulate the reader” (p. 156).

To give autonomy to the text over the reader, I employed rhetorical

criticism to study the persuasive intents of Philem carefully. It helped to distance

myself from the text of Philem in order to ‘see’ and ‘hear’ the voice of the text

rather than my own echoes. The analytical pole demands the “‘willing

suspension of disbelief’ – the conscious decision to allow the text to say

unexpected things we are not prepared for or are unwilling to hear” (Draper,

2015, p. 15). Thus, the reader steps into the milieu of the text to experience a

moment of the otherness of a life other than one’s own; “so that the text can

open up vistas, possibilities and transformative impulses that would not be

possible without the text” (Draper, 2015, p. 15). The structure of the text, the

persuasive techniques used, and the verbal formulations contribute to the

communication of the intended message of the text.

One reason that makes Draper’s model of contextual reading appealing

to me is the way he foregrounds this model on Gadamer’s philosophical

hermeneutics. In the Gadamerian sense, a text creates a world that we can enter

and in which we can imaginatively “live” so that we may be transubstantiated

by the experience of an-other (Draper, 2015). This dialogical approach reflects

the enduring self-relatedness of our understanding of the other (the text), not the

other’s objectivity but the other’s uniqueness even with the “thou” (i.e., the

reader).

29
As flesh and blood readers, we cannot escape our own historical conditioning;

however, before we can undergo the possibility of ‘comprehension and

transformation through our engagement with the other (i.e., the text), it must be

allowed to say something to us. Thus, the tri-polar model helps me acknowledge

“ideo-theological orientation” and “the pre-understanding” with which, I come

to this particular text (Draper, 2015).

Second pole: Contextualisation

Contextualisation simply means looking at things from one’s context or

situation. The second component of the contextual reading model analyses the

various meanings people assign to the text in their socio-historical contexts.

From Draper’s point of view, the exegetical process consists of linking two

historical specificities together in their distinctiveness and prejudice so that each

sheds illumination on the other, fusing their horizons in historical

consciousness. The stage of understanding lays the ground for us to examine

the various ways the text is appropriated.

In the chapter on contextualisation (i.e., Chapter Four), we looked at

how critical issues in Philem were interpreted in the St. Thomas context of the

West Indies. The gathered data from Christian parents, employers, domestic

workers, and maids on the challenges faced in their day-to-day relations were

substantiated by previous empirical studies in the social sciences. . The target

population comprised Christian households with domestic workers or fictive

children in the Assin South District and Cape Coast Municipality. The target

population comprised Christian households with domestic workers or fictive

children. However, few households with peculiar cases were purposively

30
sampled for an interview since I was particularly interested in dilemmas faced

by each group in the household.

Lorraine Rumbel Gay (2012) stipulates that purposive selection is used

where the group or individuals possess specific information required. Therefore,

ten (10) respondents from fictive children/maids/labourers were purposively

selected to share their experiences in Christian households. Besides, I

snowballed ten (10) fictive parents and employers to recount their challenging

moments with maids and fictive children. I employed a semi-structured

interview guide as the instrument for gathering empirical data. The nature of

this instrument allows the researcher to ask follow-up questions that might be

triggered by the already prepared questions for the interview. The information

gathered through the interview was presented anonymously to enhance privacy

and protect the rights and identities of the respondents.

Cases of master-servant dilemma could be disturbing the emotional

health of respondents as some would not feel safe and comfortable talking about

their past or present experiences. The researcher took steps to overcome these

foreseeable challenges and to assure the respondents of the confidentiality

and credibility of the study. Firstly, I gave an assurance of credibility and

confidentiality to my respondents through an Introductory Letter from the

Department of Religion and Human Values. This letter gave ethical backing to

the study and the field data gathering. Secondly, respondents were taken

through a preliminary conversation about the right to withdraw consent from

the interview when they feel to do so.

31
Third pole: Appropriation

To appropriate means ‘to take something that belongs to or is associated with

somebody else for [your] own use.’ Appropriation is basically ‘the actions’ that

readers take after their contextualisation of the text. It refers to the pragmatic or

proactive use of the text in communities. “What does this text mean to us” is a

contextual question that informs people’s practical usage of the text in their

community context. The text users have no problems with the practical

appropriation in their context but have challenges understanding the literary

aspects of the text. Usually, they disregard the historical and critical literary

setting of the text and moved immediately into the contextual appropriation of

the text. As Gerald West (1989) affirms, ordinary readers “believe, hope and act

with little or no ‘expert’ biblical knowledge” (p. 40). In this process, they

subvert the text to resonate with their contextual needs without giving

consideration to the historical and literary context of the text.

The relationship between “scientific exegesis and the context must be

enhanced in order not to make the Bible essentially dumb for the present, unable

to address the problems of society” (Gatti, 2017, p. 24). A face-to-face dialogic

encounter between “the text” and “the African context” creates the possibility

for transformative implications to be deduced. This component climaxes the

interpretive activity of the sacred text in the light of the reading community’s

context where the text is normative.

Literature Review

This section is an attempt to establish the study within the context of relevant

and related scholarships. The review is separated into two parts. The first part

focuses on hermeneutics, exegesis and meaning; African Biblical Hermeneutics

32
(ABH). The second section looks at rhetorical criticism, rhetorical studies on

Philem, the identity of Onesimus, and the occasion of Philem.

Conceptual Review – hermeneutics, exegesis and meaning

There is a sustained scholarly debate over the relationship of basic terms such

as hermeneutics, exegesis and meaning over the past two decades (Brown,

2007; Kaiser Jr. & Silva, 2009; Mensah, 2018; Tate, 2008). In the subsequent

paragraphs, I attempt to review the main arguments in order to reach a

conceptual definition of hermeneutics and its related concepts, such as exegesis

and loci of meaning.

The term ‘hermeneutics’ stems from the Greek ‘hermeneuein,’ which

signifies “to interpret” or “to translate.” It originates from the name of the Greek

god of messaging, Hermes, the son of Zeus. He was in charge of communicating

messages from the Greek deities to the people. His duty was not simply to

reiterate what the gods had spoken to him, but more notably, to decipher the

messages and make them comprehensible to the recipients. Hermes had to

interpret the meaning of the messages for his listeners and, in doing so, had to

go far beyond just regurgitating the intended truth. He had to reconstruct or re-

create the meaning that would match his audience’s history, culture, and

concepts to enable them to make sense of things (Stanley & Robinson, 2011,

p.3).

Hermeneutics is conceived as the broad discipline in the humanities that

deals with theoretical reflections on the process of interpretation: the theory and

philosophy of interpretation. It stands back from the actual act of interpretation

of any written text or work of art and gives attention to the processes of such

interpretation by considering both the text or art under consideration and the

33
person or persons who seek to understand it (Jeanrond, 1991). Consequently,

Ricoeur (1980, p. 43) describes hermeneutics as “the theory of the operations of

understanding concerning the interpretation of texts.” Theoretically, it

designates formulated principles and methods to understand all written texts,

including legal, historical, literary, and biblical texts.

In the discipline of biblical studies, hermeneutics is regarded as “the

theory, method and practice of how to read, understand, and use biblical texts”

(Longenecker, 1999). In his work, Scripture as Communication, Brown (2015,

p. 33) also describes hermeneutics as “the analysis of what we do when we seek

to understand the Bible, including its appropriation to the contemporary world.”

However, W. Randolph Tate (2008, p. 1) views hermeneutics as “the study of

the locus of meaning and the principles of interpretation.” Furthermore, Schökel

(2004, p. 4) explains hermeneutics as “the theory of the comprehension and

interpretation of literary texts.” Also, Thiselton (2009) posits that hermeneutics

explores “how we read, understand, and handle texts, especially those written

in another time or another context of life from our own.”

In sum, hermeneutics is the science and art of interpreting a biblical text

to understand its original meaning and then describe its implication for the

current audience. The fundamental goal of biblical hermeneutics is to provide

the exegete with a framework consisting of tools, techniques, methods or

principles needed to adequately extract the actual meaning or intention of the

original author to the original audience. Applying the rules of interpretation

brings to light an underlying coherence or sense of a text. Generally, many

scholars view hermeneutics as a back-and-forth movement between the parts

34
and the whole of the text, its structure and meaning, and the text and its contexts

(Corley, Lemke, & Lovejoy, 1996; Osborne, 2006; Tate, 2008).

Closely related to hermeneutics is the concept of exegesis, a term that

describes the wide-ranging set of activities a hermeneuticist executes to make

thoughtful inferences from a text. Exegesis is a regular activity in which almost

every human being engages in everyday life whenever they seek to understand

an oral or written statement. The meaning stems from a Greek word that

primarily means ‘to lead out.’ In textual studies, exegesis connotes the idea of

‘reading out’ of it its meaning. Packer (1983, p. 345) neatly defines exegesis as

“bringing out of the text all that it contains the thoughts, attitudes, assumptions,

and so forth – in short, the whole expressed mind – of the human writer.” Thus,

it can also be referred to as ‘interpretation’ or ‘explanation.’ It applies the

principles of hermeneutics to arrive at a correct understanding of the (biblical)

text. However, exegesis is also not a random task. It is a process that carries

with it specific demands and requirements. Exegesis is more concerned with

how one understands a text and by which one can tell what one has understood.

While Kaiser and Silva (1994) view exegesis simply as an alternative

reference to interpretation, Schökel (1998) contends that it is “the exercise of

comprehending and interpreting a text.” Consequently, if hermeneutics can be

equated as the total sum of exegesis and interpretation by the reader of the text,

then exegesis is the process of applying the principles of hermeneutics to tease

out or lead out the meaning of the text or to attain a correct understanding of the

text.

However, the concept of “meaning” does not lend itself to a precise

definition. Brown (2015) asserts that meaning is the idea or knowledge we are

35
trying to grasp when interpreting ‘a communicative act.’ This idea or knowledge

is conceived as part of the process of interpretation. Every written text is an

event in which a ‘sender’ composes a ‘message’ that reaches a ‘receiver.’ The

contemporary debate about meaning is focused on ‘where meaning can be

found.’

For some, meaning is to be located in the author (i.e., what the author

intends or intended and what he/she actually wrote). For others, ‘meaning’ of a

written text is just what the text says, irrespective of the author’s intention.

Moreover, others contend that the meaning of a text is to be found in the reader

(i.e., the impacts the text has on the reader’s world; the text’s relevance or

significance to the reader). Consequently, we can discern three ‘worlds’ of

meaning in every communication event or text: (a) the world behind the text,

(b) the world in the text and (c) the word in front of the text (Carvalho, 2009).

The “world behind the text” means that textual meaning is found in the

historical events or sources that underlie the text. The “world in the text”

signifies that meaning is found in the interaction of elements and structures that

emerge in a close reading of the text in its final form. Finally, the “world in front

of the text” denotes that textual meaning is found in the construction of meaning

in the interaction between text and reader. Tate (2008) suggests a classification

of the different hermeneutical methods/approaches designed to penetrate these

three separate worlds of meaning. He isolates (a) author-centred approaches, (b)

text centred approaches, and (c) reader-centred approaches.

Author-centred approaches, also known as the Historical-Critical-

Methods, focus hermeneutical attention on the author and his/her world to

sufficiently unearth the actual meaning or intention(s) of the original author to

36
the primary recipient(s). A historical-critical approach gives attention to the

text’s historical background, the author, and the intended audience. Textual

meaning is identified with the meaning intended by the author. Influenced by

scientific positivism and evolutionary ideas of the 19th century, these

approaches assume that a text can be understood only in light of the historical

context within which it originated. The text is merely the medium through

which the author’s original intentions, which lie behind the text, find

expression. These intentions were formed against the background of the

author’s personal, social and historical circumstances. It focuses on “the

historical setting of a document, the time and place in which it was written, its

sources, the events, dates, persons and places mentioned or implied in the text,”

to reconstruct a chronological narrative of pertinent events, revealing where

there are possible interconnections of the events themselves. Awareness of the

socio-historical conditions in which texts were fashioned is essential to

understanding them correctly.

Therefore, the interpreter’s task is to carefully collect the pieces of

historical evidence behind the texts and fit them all together. Meaning is

determined in a diachronic manner from the perspective of the author and

subsequent redactors. In other words, the meaning is viewed as having

developed through time. It is seen from a historical progression. These

approaches look at the production and evolutionary processes of the text. These

approaches create objectivity between the reader and the text, thus allowing one

to hear more truly what the writer intended to say. They free the reader from

the tyranny of one’s present circumstance by showing one the past.

37
 However, diachronic approaches to the search for meaning are plagued

by the wide historical chasm between the original moment in the author’s mind,

the cultural specificity of the author’s language, and the neglect of the world

within the text because of the excessive interest given to the world behind the

text. It makes us forget that those human beings were very much like us and

wrestled with the problems all human beings today encounter. Thus, it is

practically impossible to access the intention of an ancient author who died over

2000years ago (Wimsatt, 1989). Moreover, strict pursuance of these approaches

often leads to an intentional fallacy. To overcome these limitations, an

interpreter should place a text in its specific context not merely with ‘who’ and

‘when’ but also with ‘how’ and in ‘what kind of society.’

Text-centred approaches centre on the text’s literary features rather than

its historical background for a meaning generation. It builds on the assumption

that authors are imaginative, creative crafters of art employing structural

elements (i.e., plot, setting, characterisation, style, syntax and diction) and

literary devices usually associated with the poetics and the genre of the

literature. Meaning is viewed as immanent in texts, not bounded to the author’s

intentions nor requiring events, objects or persons outside the text to understand

it. The critic does not consider the texts as a mirror that reflects the real world

outside them; they instead create new worlds of meaning. Again, the meaning

of a text is not changed by the reader’s reaction to it. To get to the meaning of

texts, one does not have to study the minds of authors and readers (psychology)

or events outside the world of the text (history) or social relationships

(sociology).

38
 The textual meaning is delineated by deciphering the text and its

relationship with the reader. The critic closely studies the various aspects of the

text’s language and examines its internal form and structure to describe how the

texts as a meaningful whole fit together. Poetics, semiotics, genre studies,

stylistics, narratology or narrative studies, rhetorical criticism, and structuralism

are some notable text-centred models which study the Bible purely as literature.

One of the weaknesses the text-immanent approaches share in common with

the historical-critical approaches is that the reader is simply the one who

receives what is already objectively “there.”

There is also a reader-centred approach that emphasises the reader as the

source of meaning. The underlying notion is that reading is an interaction in

which the reader is far from a passive component. The reader does not merely

discover meaning but plays an active part in the creation of meaning. Texts do

not “have” fixed meanings that simply need to be “unwrapped”. Tate (2008)

puts it succinctly when in these words: “once the text leaves the hands of the

author, the author’s intent and the whole matrix of originating circumstances

lose any claim of being constitutive of meaning” (p. 25). It runs contrary to the

position of formalist critics, who claim that a text has autonomy and offers an

objective standard of meaning. Instead, meaning emanates out of the dialogue

between texts and readers who deal creatively with the text(s).

The contextual and ideological reading methods such as liberation

hermeneutics, contextual bible studies, feminist readings, and Black theology

operate on the presupposition that a text does not communicate without a reader.

Emphasis is placed on the present context of the reader relating to the biblical

text. Therefore, these approaches create a space for readers to bring their own

39
points of view and concerns to the text and so may end up with different

meanings. The reader is the one who makes crucial conclusions about what the

text says. This approach to meaning sustains the relevance of the reader’s

presuppositions such as interests, foresight and pre-understanding in the

interpretation process. The setting of the reader affords the “horizon of

understanding” that enables him/her to make sense of the text.

Meaning should not be conceptualised only in cognitive terms as

something concerning ideas or thoughts only. Instead, the meaning of meaning

should be broadened to include the effects or practical influence of the text’s

language on a reader and the reading community. Thus, it is not just what the

language of the text says but also what it does through a dialogic process of

interaction. Today, biblical exegesis has moved towards integrative approaches.

In effect, this is the rationale for employing Gadamer’s (1975) philosophical

hermeneutics as the ontological theory for the study. It offers us the needed

presuppositions for an integrated approach to biblical hermeneutics in Africa.

African Biblical Hermeneutics

African Biblical Hermeneutics (ABH, hereafter) are the ingenious reading

models carved out from African social-cultural realities and worldviews for

telling the African’s unique story to the entire world whilst allowing for

transformative or incarnational dialogues between the word of God (the

Christian gospel) and the people of God in African communities. Stated

differently, ABH refers to the theorizing of interpretive models to the reading

and application of the biblical messages for practical purposes of incarnating

the ‘beingness’ of the African by offering hermeneutical insights into troubling

existential and physical realities which Eurocentric approaches have failed to

40
address. Hence, it operates within the universal framework of biblical

interpretation.

Generally, ABH seeks to incarnate the word of God in concrete life

situations of Africans. Nicoletta Gatti (2017, p. 47) writes:

Starting from the belief that context—social, economic, political and

religious—constitutes the flesh of the Word (John 1:14), several
different approaches have been developed in order to incarnate the Word
within the African continent, a kaleidoscope of cultures and religions,
rich in opportunities, however tragically marked by economic and
political conflicts and deep social injustices.

The African biblical interpreter is not “a disinterested reader” of the Biblical

text. Scripture is rarely read in a vacuum. It is always discerned in connection

to the holistic lifestyle in a given contemporary community. It is primarily

“driven by a theological-ideological impetus toward personal and societal

transformation” to enhance the worth of life of persons and societies

(Nthambury, 2002, p. 3).

ABH seeks to uncover reading practices that include otherwise

marginalised and excluded (African) voices and argue why such voices should

be heard. African hermeneutics aims to empower the powerless by tolerating

their unique contributions, which come from unique locations, to count as

legitimate while at the same time showing why they are truly legitimate. In this

sense, ABH does not deal with the Bible merely as an ancient text. It engages

the Bible “to deal with present concerns, addressing issues that resonate with

African (and world) realities” (Mbuvi, 2017, p. 154).

The historical inception of ABH is traced to the early 1960s. It has

“travelled from the margins of political and interpretive alienation but has

increasingly taken shape within centres of cosmopolitan, academic and

governing power” (Masenya, 2018, p. 1). In the wake of the struggles for

41
political independence and reconstruction of African’s identity and beingness,

African interpreters began advancing models of reading with the goal of

“inculturating the Bible in a dynamic dialogue with the multiplicity of cultures

that characterise the African continent” (Ossom-Batsa, 2007, p. 92). These

African reading models came to be designated collectively as ABH.

ABH “refuse to be confined by the methodologies, ancient concerns, and

principles that govern biblical studies in the ‘west’… and instead charts a course

that is more interested in making biblical interpretation relevant to present

realities” (Mbuvi, 2017, p. 1). The African hermeneutical models offer

theoretical arguments for altering the effects of the cultural and “ideological

conditioning to which Africa and Africans have been subjected in the enterprise

of biblical interpretation” (Adamo, 2001).

The context of the reading communities becomes central in meaning-

making. All experiences, challenges and ingenuities of African people are

brought to bear on the theory and praxis of biblical hermeneutics. Theresa Okure

(2000) aptly posits that the present-day life experiences are the only valid

standpoints we have for understanding the biblical text because our sum-total

life experiences are basically the prime context for undertaking theology and

reading the Bible. A fundamental assumption underpinning ABH is that

interpretation is a function of the meaning of a text derived from the interactions

between the text and the reader in their respective contexts.

There are different approaches to ABH. Ukpong (1998) identifies five

of them as (1) comparative, (2) evaluative, (3) inculturation, (4) liberative

(Contextual Bible Study), and (5) feminist hermeneutics. West (2013),

however, sees “inculturation” or “theologies of being” and “liberation” or

42
“theologies of bread” as the two main tendencies constituting the two dominant

models of bible scholarship in Africa.

I have chosen a contextual hermeneutical model because the study is

interested in finding out how the text of Philem has been interpreted and used

in communities where many people relate to the Bible as a sacred book. Ossom-

Batsa (2007) notes that the Bible reveals itself as a dialogue between God and

humanity. Reading the bible is more of a communicative exercise where one

reads his/her own being in dialogue with God. Western critical tools for

interpreting the bible “seem to have a natural bent for classical theology, a type

of reflection that does not travel well across cultural barriers” (Regier & Regier,

1994). Besides, the ordinary African reader struggles to appreciate the

significance of scripture from western-oriented theories. Herein lies the

motivation for employing the ABH model to read and incarnate the text in my

context.

Instead of confining myself to a western reading method, I have chosen

to embrace the assumptions of ABH to contribute to the pragmatic call for

transformation in the African context, especially among Christian employers

and employees, as well as householders and housemaids. While I share the

presuppositions that the bible is contextual and its message needs to be

contextualised, I am prompted by Ossom-Batsa’s (2007) careful observation

that “too much stress on context and culture runs the risk of generating a

‘pseudo-biblical theology,’ not concretely founded on the scripture” (p. 92).

Using the ABH model would also help recognise the connections and

disconnections between traditional historical-critical approaches and African

biblical interpretative models. The outstanding progress of African Christianity

43
emanates in part from the appropriation of the Bible in churches with solid roots

in African culture. As a result, scholars of the bible in Africa are increasingly

concerned with developing their relationship with ordinary readers of the Bible

and theorising methods of theology that can critically engage with these new

manifestations of church life in the community (Anum, 1999).

Rhetorical criticism

Since the times of the Greeks and Romans, rhetoric has been a subject of study

for literary artistry and persuasive effect. Rhetoric entails carefully choosing

words in a communication aimed at influencing the audience into accepting

arguments. Vyacheslav Kirillov (2014, p. 127) describes rhetoric “as the science

of the laws of eloquence and their practical application.” Fundamentally, it can

be described as the art of writing or speaking convincingly. Robert S. Cathcart

(1981) views it as “a communicator’s intentional use of language and other

symbols to persuade or influence particular addressees to act, believe, or feel

the way the communicator desires in problematic situations” (p. 2).

Furthermore, George Kennedy (1984) describes ‘rhetoric’ as that

“quality in discourse by which a speaker or writer seeks to accomplish his

purposes” (p. 3). It is more of a dialogue between the author and his/her

listeners, with the author employing relevant techniques to influence the

listeners.

It can be surmised from these scholars that rhetoric involves symbols

created for representing objects in the communication process. Generally, it

refers to the art of employing discourse, be it oral or written, according to

accepted conventions and procedures to persuade, motivate, and persuade an

audience according to the goals of the writer or speaker.

44
 Rhetorical criticism is the scientific way of unearthing the means by

which a text persuades its listeners or readers. Stated differently, it is the careful

analysis of “the literary effectiveness” of a text. Scholars in biblical studies

employ rhetoric to study devices the author uses in the effective discourse, for

example, repetitions and patterns of the author’s choice of words or diction. This

literary technique tries to understand the creator’s message, how it was

constructed and intended to function, and how the audience was likely to

comprehend and act in response to the text. Cathcart (1981) submits that

rhetorical criticism tries to appreciate how or why a message was compelling.

He regards it as a qualitative research method intended for a “systematic

investigation and exploration of symbolic acts and artefacts” to understand the

rhetorical processes (Cathcart, 1981, p. 56). In iterating the connection of

rhetoric with the social environment, Watson (1997) argues that rhetoric is “the

connection between the text and the social environment, evaluating the latter

through the former.” It studies the words, phrases and literary devices employed

by authors to create an effect in the minds of their audience through texts.

Tate (2008) intimates that “rhetorical criticism dwells on the

communication between an author and a reader by analysing the strategies an

author adopts to shape a reader’s response or influence a reader’s view.” He

points out that rhetorical critics share two notions: that, although imperfect,

language is sufficient to communicate human intents and that a communicative

act includes a deliberate use of language, a reaction, and a rhetorical exigency.

Kennedy (1984) opines that:

Rhetorical critics take the text as we have it, whether the work of a single
author or the product of editing, and looks at it from the author’s or
editor’s intent, the unified results, and how it would be perceived by an
audience of near-contemporaries (p. 4)

45
 The rhetorical study of the bible dates back to the patristic era. In De

Doctrina Christiana (Book 4), St. Augustine (354–430 CE) employed rhetorical

standards from Cicero’s De Inventione and Orator to study scriptural passages.

He noted that Paul, in his letters, adopted the canons of classical rhetoric. The

interest in the rhetoric of scripture continued through the Reformation period.

Reformers such as Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560), Desiderius Erasmus (ca.

1469–1536), and John Calvin (1509–1564) studied various New Testament

(NT, hereafter) books rhetorically. Melanchthon gives a rhetorical analysis of

Greco-Roman procedures of invention, arrangement and style in his

commentaries on Romans and Galatians.

Following the Reformation era, the scholarly interest in rhetoric

declined until the late 18th to early 20th centuries when German writers such as

Karl Ludwig Bauer, Johannes Weiss and Rudolf Bultmann directed their

attention to it. Weiss evaluated the rhetoric of the Pauline communications,

especially regarding parallelism, antithesis, and symmetry. Bultmann also

“found features of the Cynic–Stoic diatribe in the Pauline epistles and

concluded that Paul was functioning like a Cynic street preacher and his epistles

were from a low level of rhetorical culture in which the Cynics dwelt”

(Bultmann, 1941, p. 234). Around this period, scholars began to raise critical

questions on the appropriateness to apply traditional categories of oratory and

rhetoric to the New Testament.

Until the last three decades of the 20th century, the rhetorical criticism

of the NT concentrated largely on stylistic features but neglected more essential

matters of invention and arrangement. Scholars such as Amos N. Wilder (1956)

and Robert W. Funk (1966) reignited a renewed interest in the usage of rhetoric

46
as a valuable means for interpreting the NT. Wider (1991) argued that the

literary forms and types of the NT books reveal a great deal of information about

the socio-historical context and situation in which they were produced.

Relatedly, Funk (1966) underscored that “every epistle constitutes a structured

speech, and rhetoric is a key to understanding them” (p. 362).

Around the same period, Muilenburg (1968) addressed biblical scholars

in the 1968 SBL presidential keynote on rhetorical criticism. By pointing out

the impasse of biblical scholarship because of the exhaustiveness of form-

critical studies, James Muilenburg encouraged scholars to examine the unique

artistic qualities of texts.

However, the reintroduction of rhetorical criticism to NT scholarship is

credited to Hans Dieter Betz’s (1979) ground-breaking work on Galatians. He

echoed the earlier view of Augustine that Paul’s letters conform to traditional

categories of invention, arrangement, and style. Convinced by the notion that

classical categories of rhetoric could aid interpretation, Betz analysed Galatians

as an “apologetic letter that uses judicial rhetoric common to law courts.” Betz’s

rhetorical study of Galatians is synthesised in his commentary, “Galatians: A

Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia.” While Betz was

working with Greco-Roman rhetoric, Wilhelm Wuellner (1987) introduced

more modern rhetoric into NT studies. Working with Romans, he urged that the

Pauline epistles should be approached primarily as argumentative and

rhetorical.

Consequently, Kirillov (2014) observes that modern rhetorical studies

of the NT work together with other fields such as literary studies, linguistics,

semantics, stylistic, and analysis theory of speech. Furthermore, he states that

47
“almost all authors agree that rhetorical criticism is best used in conjunction

with other conventional methods.” On this basis, Kirillov (2014) argues that

rhetorical criticism may anticipate an interdisciplinary future.

Over the past fifty years, the rhetorical study of Paul’s letters has

tremendously advanced knowledge in hermeneutical studies, especially in

commentaries, dissertations, monographs and articles on Paul’s writings and it

is still in vogue. Paul’s epistles are not understood as a systematic expression of

theology but re-joined to their respective historical occasions and original

audiences and reinterpreted with a view to what Paul has to say in this historical

context and how he says this. At this point, ancient rhetoric is put to the use of

the exegesis of Paul’s epistles. Just as orators utilised a specific kind of

argumentation in their discourses to persuade or dissuade specific listeners, the

writer of a letter may also have used a specific technique of persuasion to

communicate his message to the audience.

While succeeding scholarship has agreed on the use of classical

rhetorical theory to clarify the argumentative structure and the rhetorical

situation of Paul’s epistles, scholarly views have differed about the

appropriateness of using classical conventions of rhetoric to interpret scripture.

On methodological grounds, the question is whether it is cogent to import and

apply ancient categories of rhetoric to the NT in general, and Pauline letters in

particular. Critics of rhetorical criticism contend that the suitability of ancient

rhetoric for examining Paul’s letters has been overrated.

In his monograph “Rhetoric and Galatians: Assessing an Approach to

Paul’s epistles,” Philip Kern (1998) criticises the rhetorical method by arguing

that the social scenery and style of rhetoric given in Greco-Roman handbooks

48
do not fit Paul’s letters. He claims, “the subject matter, venue, audience, and

style of discourse in the Pauline letters do not reflect the contextual setting and

means of delivery which teachers of rhetoric had in mind” (Kern, 1998, p. 34).

He also alleges that classical rhetoric was solely intended for persuasive public

speeches and that rhetoric and epistolography were two separate disciplines

with completely different genres. However, Kern overlooks the striking

semblances between epistolography and oratory. Numerous traits in the epistles

show Paul’s “acquaintance with recognizable epistolary conventions and

rhetorical techniques reminiscent of oral argumentation” (Martin, 1991, p. 325).

Besides, the NT writers were conversant with rhetoric either through

their education or through all kinds of contact with the Hellenistic culture. For

instance, Walter B. Russell (1993) asserts that Paul may have been introduced

to Hellenistic rhetoric as an introductory element of his rabbinic schooling.

Christopher Forbes (1986) also opines that Paul might have learned rhetorical

proficiency during his job as a peripatetic missionary and eristic in arguments

and perhaps by self-didactics. Relatedly, Thomas O. Olbricht (1996, p. 78)

maintains that rhetoric “so pervaded Hellenistic culture that it seems

implausible for Paul to have escaped altogether rhetorical insight or, at

minimum, a familiarity with Greek literature so affected.” This ties in with

Kennedy’s (1984) conclusion that a rhetorical reading is not an imposition of

an artificial structure on Paul’s letters. He asserts, “Paul’s rhetorical

construction of his letter is intentional and meaningful as it drives the reader to

the heart of his theological argument” (p. 27).

On the contrary, Schulenburg (2013) claims that “patristic exegetes

agree that Paul’s letters did not portray marks of education in rhetoric.”

49
Anderson (1998), for instance, has interrogated the notion that Paul would have

made deliberate use of classical rhetorical theory to develop his argumentation

in his writings. He also claims that the suggestion “that Paul would have had

formal rhetorical training cannot be proved by the evidence which we have,

arguing that Paul’s Jewish education could only have allowed for a limited level

of Hellenistic rhetorical training” (p. 278).

However, Anderson’s (1998) argument against postulations about

rhetorical training as part of Paul’s background is contentious, as this argument

depends on the perspective taken on the extent of intersection between

Hellenistic and Jewish education in the 1st Century C.E. Murphy-O’Connor

(2008) has recently placed the upper-class Jewish education in a Hellenistic

context which included rhetorical training. Murphy-O’Connor cites

Philostratus’ information about rhetorical training in Tarsus (Life of Apollonius

1.7) and Philo’s information about Hellenistic-Jewish education (Spec. Laws

2.229-230) to push further the argument that Greco-Roman rhetoric may have

been an element of Paul’s foundational education. Again, it is conceivable to

give an interpretation of “Paul’s own characterisation of his literary abilities”,

as in 1 Cor 1:17, 2:2.4.5; 2 Cor 10:10, 11:6, 11:1-12:13, which is different from

Anderson’s. Murphy O’Connor (2008) has underlined that Paul’s presentation

of his own (lack of) oratorical skills in reaction to the criticism by opponents

should not be taken at face value, for it matches a rhetorical context of

countering his rivals. Thus, even though Anderson has made an essential input

to the critical and prudent use of ancient rhetorical theory, some of his points of

criticism regarding Paul’s education and unawareness of rhetorical techniques

are contentious.

50
 There is also the criticism that the rhetorical handbooks and the

epistolary manuals developed independently of each other. However, the

presence of letter writing in rhetorical instruction handbooks was not a strange

occurrence. Around 4 C.E., Julius Victor made an insightful observation that

‘many instructions which relate to oral discourse also apply to letters.’ Rhetoric

in a letter was not wholly unprecedented. Examples abound in some letters, such

as those of Pliny, Seneca and Jerome. Cicero alludes to letters he received from

an individual who wrote ‘in much the same tone as the public speeches he is

said to have made at Narbo’ (Fam 10.33.2).

Additionally, Mitchell (1991) has identified deliberative rhetoric within

epistolary structures among classical writings, including Isocrates Ep 1–3, 6, 8–

9, Demosthenes Ep 1, 3, Socratic Epistles 27, 30, and 1 Clement. Hence,

Morland (1995) argues vehemently that Paul “knew the conventional modes of

argumentation, and that he recognised their persuasive force. Even the response

on the part of the audience is believed to have been governed by this

framework” (p. 127). Indeed, Paul’s writing shows “familiarity with

recognizable epistolary conventions and rhetorical techniques reminiscent of

oral argumentation” (Martin, 1991, p. 325).

Another scholar who has vehemently criticised the use of rhetorical

criticism in Pauline studies is Lauri Thurén (2000). To him, the resort to the

tools of rhetoric shifts the focus from the theology represented in the texts to the

historical ‘context’ of the rhetorical situations. He does not criticise the use of

rhetorical analysis in the exegesis of Paul’s letters per se but argues for a de-

rhetorizing Paul’s texts to find the fundamental theological ideas put across by

Paul. According to Thurén, “rhetorical criticism should not be one-

51
dimensionally applied to Paul’s letters in terms of technical conventions and

non-theological ploys of persuasion” (p. 214). However, it should be combined

with a dynamic perspective on how such rhetorical devices work together with

and affect Paul’s theological thoughts.

My position is that rhetorical criticism assists in uncovering the

argumentative dynamics of Paul’s letters. Compared to other approaches, it

gives us a better way of expounding what Paul meant in an argument, how he

developed his argument, and why he wrote his letters in the first place (Hansen,

1989). Church (1978, p. 19) aptly puts it, “whether [Paul] was trained in school

or acquired his talent through a natural course of observation and imitation, Paul

was a master of persuasion.” Aune (1987) has emphasised that Paul got exposed

to the structures and styles of trained rhetoricians” where he had “ample

opportunity to make speeches” (p. 10). Similarly, Kennedy (1984) admits that

the evidence for Paul’s education was “ambivalent”; but, so far as the legitimacy

of the method was concerned, the question was immaterial. He submits:

Even if he had not studied in a Greek school, there were many

handbooks of rhetoric in common circulation which he could have seen.
He and the evangelists as well would, indeed, have been hard put to
escape an awareness of rhetoric as practised in the culture around them,
for the rhetorical theory of the schools found its immediate application
in almost every form of oral and written communication (Kennedy,
1984, p. 9-10).

For Kennedy (1984), Paul’s letters reflect the conventions of Greek rhetoric

because rhetoric was commonplace, a cosmopolitan phenomenon conditioned

by essential workings of the human mind and heart and by the nature of all

human society. Kennedy has explained how the three basic types of speech in

ancient rhetoric—the epideictic, the deliberative, and the forensic types—may

also apply to written letters. Recent studies and guidebooks on rhetorical

52
criticism as applied to biblical exegesis have stated more caution against

associating Paul’s letters with a particular ideal type of rhetorical genre which

might amount to ‘eisegesis’ rather than to exegesis.

Rhetorical criticism is a critical tool for evaluating the argumentative

strategy adopted by Paul in addressing the issue between Philemon and

Onesimus. Furthermore, a careful rhetorical analysis of Philem would offer

valuable insights on how one should proceed from the literary text to the

historical context of slavery. In Chapter Three of the study, we employed

Kennedy’s five-step approach to rhetorical analysis as outlined in his seminal

work, NT Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Kennedy’s work

provides a detailed explanation of the use of rhetorical criticism in NT

scholarship. He maintains that the NT authors had a message to convey and

sought to influence the addressees to believe it or believe it more passionately.

Thus, his book serves well as a primer for the rhetorical study of early Christian

texts for many modern readers.

The first task is to determine the rhetorical unit of the book, passage or

discourse. The exegete must decide the amount of text to be studied and its

setting within larger rhetorical units, including the rhetoric of the entire book.

This delimitation parallels the isolation of a pericope by form-critical readers.

The critic interprets the literary text as a composite unit or a self-contained unit

of a full speech rather than splitting it into hypothetical sources, fragments, and

interpolations. Kennedy (1984) indicates that

the rhetoric of large units often has to be built up from an

understanding of the rhetoric of smaller units. [But] in the case of
the short epistles of the New Testament, it is possible, to begin with
the whole letter as a unit (p. 23).

53
The rhetorical unit chosen has a noticeable beginning and ending within itself,

connected by some arguments or actions. Therefore, the critical reader will have

to look for signs of opening or proem and closure or epilogue.

The second stage is discerning the rhetorical situation. Similar to Sitz

im Leben in form criticism, the critic finds out the situations that might have

compelled the author to write the text, the reason(s) it was written, the mood of

the audience and the author, and their societal values. The situation dictates the

rhetorical discourse “in the same sense that the question controls the answer and

the problem controls the solution.” The term “rhetorical situation” was devised

by Lloyd F. Bitzer (1968) to denote

complex of persons, events, objects, and relations presenting an actual

or potential exigence which can be completely or partially removed if
discourse, introduced into the situation, can so constrain human decision
or action as to bring about the significant modification of the exigence
(Bitzer, 1968, p. 1).

From the definition, three interrelated constituents make up the rhetorical

situation: the exigence, the audience, and the constraints that affect the rhetor

and can be brought to bear upon the audience. The exigence “is an imperfection

marked by urgency, an obstacle, something waiting to be done, a thing which is

other than it should be and requires modification” (Bitzer, 1968, p. 5). There are

numerous forms of exigence, but only those elements requiring or inviting the

assistance of rhetoric for modification can be considered rhetorical exigences.

The rhetorical audience refers to “those figures who are capable of being

persuaded by discourse and of being mediators of change” (Bitzer, 1968, p. 5).

Finally, the rhetorical situation exhibits constraints—persons, events,

objects, and relations—that are parts of the situation because they hinder the

decision and action needed to modify the exigence. The rhetor could exploit the

54
circumstances that interfere with or get in the way of a rhetor’s ability to respond

to an exigence. The reconstruction of the rhetorical situation of Paul’s letters is

constrained by the fact that only Paul’s part of the correspondence is available

to the modern reader.

Schüssler E. Fiorenza (1987, p. 108) has reasoned that “the rhetorical

situation, as it may be reconstructed from Paul’s letters, cannot be likened to the

historical situation.” She argues, “a careful examination of Paul’s rhetorical

strategies should move beyond the face-value reading of the letters as just a

response to a rhetorical situation to the idea that Paul also ‘creates’ the rhetorical

situation” (Fiorenza, 1987, p. 108). With this argument, Fiorenza dissociates

herself from the idea that the rhetorical situation deduced from Paul’s text brings

us inevitably closer to the historical situation. She contributes to the rhetorical

study of Paul’s letters by the important methodological point of the difference

between rhetorical situation and historical situation. This distinction aids

readers to get a clearer insight into Paul’s use of the historical occasion to create

a rhetorical exigency in need of immediate attention and redress.

The third stage is establishing the rhetorical genre, the problem, and the

status of the discourse. In most rhetorical situations, the speaker will be found

to face one dominating rhetorical exigency. Kennedy (1984) states:

the audience is perhaps already prejudiced against him and not disposed
to listen to anything he may say; or the audience may not perceive him
as having the authority to advance the claims he wishes to make; or what
he wishes to say is very complicated and thus hard to follow, or so totally
different from what the audience expects that they will not immediately
entertain the possibility of its truth (p. 36).

The effort to influence or convince usually indicates the existence of some

resistance, i.e., a rhetorical problem, but it is often difficult to establish what the

question or controversy was. The critic should examine how the rhetor

55
overcomes the audience’s prejudices and make them recognize him as having

the legitimate power to advance the claims he/she wishes to make. Also, the

literary critic is asked to determine the rhetorical species of the literary text to

discern different parts of the text and identify their intended persuasive effects.

The prologue induces the audience’s posture toward the author, and the

elucidation of a point influences how another will be received. According to

Thurén (2000, p. 75), “the function of the techniques and arguments is

determined mainly by their position in the text.” One should also ascertain the

stasis – a series of steps or questions to ask the heart of the matter, whether it is

one of fact, definition, or quality.

The fourth stage in Kennedy’s approach is analysing the rhetorical

strategy of the text by looking at the invention, arrangement, and rhetorical

styles to determine “how they work together … to some unified purpose in

meeting the rhetorical situation” (Kennedy, 1984, p. 37). What is the discourse’s

structure, what arguments are used, and what assumptions do they make? What

literary devices are employed, and how do they promote the purpose of the text?

To do this, according to Kennedy, the reader should engage in a line-by-line

study of the argument, including its hypotheses, its topics, and its standard

features, such as enthymemes, and the devices of style, seeking to define their

functions in a context.

The final stage is to review the analysis “process by looking back over

the entire unit and reviewing its success” in tackling the rhetorical situation and

its implications for the speaker or audience (Kennedy, 1984, p. 38). Finally, the

critic examines how the rhetorical strategy and design support the message and

how the words and the style work together to affect the audience in their

56
situation. The above-reviewed structure of rhetorical reading shall inform our

analysis of the persuasiveness of Philem in Chapter Three of this study.

Interpretive views on Philem

The interpretation of Philem has long been affected by various

hypotheses. The critical problem is that some are not sufficiently based on

historical evidence and consistent with Pauline’s thoughts. Winter (1984) is

correct in pointing out that “[a] given method has its own bias; it is intended and

equipped to analyse only certain aspects of the text” (p. 203). The following

section seeks to review the hypotheses used in different main lines of discussion,

with the view to show how different hypotheses affect the interpretation of

Philem significantly.

The runaway hypothesis has had an enormous impact on the

interpretative history of Philem. Chrysostom once used slavery as a metaphor

to explain why God needs to chastise people. He explained to his audience (most

of them were slave masters) that slaves, who were “rebellious and anti-social

like criminals, require punishment to keep them in the right position.” This

thinking follows the natural slave theory proposed by Aristotle, which still

prevailed in Chrysostom’s time. It is, therefore, not difficult to understand that

the runaway hypothesis was formed in such a period with a substantial prejudice

against slaves. David DeSilva (2002) also points out that this speculation owes

more to popular Greek and Roman tales of “a crafty slave,” represented in

comedies, who pilfered from the master and used that money to buy his freedom

or finance his flight before he could be discovered.

However, only showing that the hypothesis may begin from a historical

context full of bias cannot prove that the hypothesis is wrong; we need to show

57
further those other arguments for this hypothesis cannot stand under critical

examination. The fact that Onesimus decided to run away and risk such a long

journey seems to indicate a severe breakdown in the social contract between

slave and master. Onesimus risked both the physical hazards of the journey as

well as the terrible consequences of being caught. If he had been sent back to

his master, this incident could have led to severe punishment and reduced his

chances of being considered for release. Runaway slaves faced a penalty of

severe flogging, torture and even execution by such cruel forms as crucifixion

(Harrill, 2006). Whatever else he had done, he had compounded his crime by

running away. While he is now with Paul, he implies that he did leave his

master’s house; however, robbery is nowhere explicitly stated in Philem.

The runaway hypothesis is supported mainly by two lines of reason.

Textually, supporters use verse 11 to argue the slave’s previous unsatisfactory

services and verse 18 for the damage and loss done to his master. However, this

is not a strong argument, as the interpretation of these two verses does not

express an explicit meaning that supports the runaway hypothesis. Historically,

the runaway hypothesis is also sustained by the use of Pliny the Younger’s letter

to Sabinianus as a piece of evidence to justify Paul’s letter as a similar type.

Pliny’s letter has often been cited to advance the view that Philem belonged to

the same type of letter asking for forgiveness.

Stanley Stowers (1986) categorises Pliny’s letter and Philem as letters of

mediation. He defines a letter of mediation as one in which “one person makes

a request to another person on behalf of a third party” (p. 48). Below is Pliny the

Younger’s letter to Sabinianus:

Your freedman, with whom you said you were angry, has approached
me, and grovelling at my feet he has clung to them as if they were yours.

58
 His tears were copious, as were his pleas and also his silences. In short,
he persuaded me that he was genuinely sorry, and I believe that he has
turned over a new leaf because he feels that he has misbehaved. I know
that you are furious with him, and I know also that you are rightly so,
but praise for forbearance is especially due when the grounds for anger
are more justified. You were fond of him, and I hope that you will be so
in the future; meanwhile, it is enough that you allow yourself to be
appeased. It will be possible for you to renew your anger if he deserves
it, and you will have greater justification if you have been prevailed upon
now. Make some allowance for his youth, for his tears, and for your own
benevolence. Do not cause him pain, to avoid paining yourself, for you
pain yourself when your mild disposition turns to anger. I fear that I may
seem to be applying pressure rather than to be pleading with you, if I
join my prayers to his, and I shall do this all the more fully and frankly
for having rebuked him more sharply and severely, having threatened
that I shall never plead with you again after this. That threat was
addressed to him, for it was necessary to scare him, and not to you;
indeed, I shall perhaps plead with you again, and my plea will again to
be granted, provided only that it is fitting for me to request it, and for
you to grant it. Farewell. (Pliny the Younger, 62 C.E.? – c.a. 113 C..E,
cited in Fitzmyer, 2000, p. 13).

An obvious insight deducible from these two contemporary letters is that

on both occasions, the subject of the appeal was desperately apprehensive and

scared to face the anger of his master (i.e., dominus) primarily because the slave

was declared a fugitivus. Again, both letters employ diplomacy by appealing to

the goodwill of the dominus without any direct compulsion. Both also exert

mediating skills that embed Paul’s sensitivity in dealing with people of different

social statuses.

Despite belonging to the same letter type and shedding some insights on

each other, the two letters pose challenges to interpreters when a further critical

comparison is made. Pliny explicitly mentions the freedman’s genuine

repentance, scolds the freedman for his bad conduct and firmly warns him never

to indulge in that deviant act again. In contrast, Paul does not directly say what

the modern reader must expect of a situation concerning a troublesome slave:

Paul does not ask Philemon to forgive or have mercy. Another difficulty in

59
interpreting Philem in the light of Pliny’s letter is that Pliny discusses a

freedman (not a slave or a runaway slave at all) compared with Paul’s appeal,

which is offered for a runaway slave.

Also, a closer comparison of the tone of the two requests reveals that

while Pliny’s words are “more forthright, direct and explicit”, that of Paul is

more cryptic and goes much beyond the appeal of the former (Witherington III,

2007). The letter of Pliny follows the rhetorical convention of deprecatio (a plea

for mercy), but there is not a single hint that the apostle is pleading for mercy in

Philem. Again, Pliny aligns himself with his friend, not with the slave, assuring

Sabinianus that he has reprimanded and warned the freedman regarding his

actions, but Paul identifies with Onesimus as much as with Philemon.

Moreover, the situation of Paul’s appeal appears more delicate

compared to Pliny’s appeal. For one thing, Pliny’s appeal contains little or no

subversive proposition to transform the ideology behind the master-slave

relationship radically. However, Paul’s appeal involves both the legal aspect of

Roman culture and the essence of the Christian gospel. The triad— Onesimus

the runaway slave, Paul the apostle and Philemon the angry master—are all

Christians. What compounds the complexity of the situation is that both the

master and the slave owe their catechism to the apostle (v. 19).

Another difficulty in using Pliny’s letter as an argument is that Paul has

not indicated his negative judgment on the one to be interceded for and his plea.

Pliny’s letter states, “I know that you are furious with him, and I know also that

you are rightly so.” However, in Philem, Paul does not indicate his negative

judgment of Onesimus. So why does Paul not mention anything directly related

to Onesimus’ act? Also, concerning the plea, Pliny has explicitly, though

60
rhetorically, raised his plea to Sabinianus: “Do not cause him pain, to avoid

paining yourself, for you pain yourself when your mild disposition turns to

anger.” However, we find no such direct plea in Paul’s letter related to the

possible result of a runaway slave. It would then be very strange if Paul did not

even plead one word on Onesimus’s possible severe punishment upon his return

if Onesimus’s runaway stemmed from the slave’s own misconduct.

Peter Lampe (2010) has challenged the runaway hypothesis by arguing

that the most probable behaviour for a runaway slave would not be to go to a

big city but to join a gang. He asks: why would a slave voluntarily go to any

prison? Why does Paul not scold or rebuke Onesimus for defiantly leaving his

master’s household? Moreover, if Onesimus is not a runaway slave, why does

Philem have a different tone from Pliny’s letter to Sabinianus?

In answering these questions, Winter (1987) has suggested that

Onesimus was a ‘dispatched slave.’ This theory argues that Onesimus did not

run away but was sent to attend on Paul by Philemon. Greco-Roman prisons

were temporarily detention points for criminals before their trial or execution.

The basic necessities of prisoners were left to the criminal’s friends or family to

supply. Knowing the dangers the imprisoned Paul faced, early Christian

congregations sent representatives with money and other gifts to cater for the

apostle in his imprisonment.

Winter (1984) draws on the precedence scenario in Philippians 2:25

where Paul thanks the church for dispatching Epaphroditus to “minister to my

need” in prison. She contends that Onesimus ministered in a similar function on

behalf of the congregation in Philemon’s house. Onesimus could have aided

Paul as a scribe, carrier, lector, daily assistant, cleaner, or a combination of these

61
roles. One advantage of this theory is that it explains why the slave would go to

a guarded prison. Again, Paul’s judiciousness in not keeping the slave whom

Philemon had sent him, according to Winter, is the plausible occasion of the

letter.

Albert Harrill (2006) has evaluated Winter’s proposal by examining

parallel examples in extant classical letters. For example, a letter written to

Cicero by Publius Cornelius Dolabella reveals the latter’s notoriousness for

keeping his friend’s letter carriers for a more extended period. He also cites a

Papyrus letter dated September 12th, 50 C.E., in which an Egyptian Olive,

Mystarion, asks a chief priest Stotoetis not to detain the slave Blastus whom he

sent because he needed him every moment. Philem and this Papyrus letter share

parallel verbs in the original Greek. One, Mystarion asks Stotoetis not “to

detain” (katechein) Blastus, and similarly, Paul discloses that he desires “to

detain” (katechein) Onesimus (v. 13). Two, Mystarion stresses that he needs

Blatus each “moment” (hora); likewise, Paul elucidates the need to keep

Onesimus for a “moment” (hora, v. 15). This scenario is employed to explain

why there is no scolding on the part of Paul for the slave’s actions, as well as

any reference to penitence on the part of Onesimus for misconduct. However,

the difficulty with this historical reconstruction is that the pledge Paul makes

“to repay” any offence (v. 18) appears to favour the runaway theory or the

notion that the mistake lies with Onesimus. Thus, the argument that Philem

makes no obvious reference to Onesimus’s runaway is not a shred of substantial

evidence that he did not do so (Barclay, 1991).

Church (1978) opens a new discussion of the purpose and argument used

in the letter. He explains that the letter is arranged in the form and structure of

62
deliberative rhetoric. After establishing his own argument, he also compares

Pliny’s letter to Sabinianus and concludes that, firstly, Philemon is not simply

the same plea of mercy as Pliny, given the rhetorical structure Paul employed.

He explains that the reason for Paul not begging forgiveness for the slave as

Pliny did was because Paul’s understanding of Christian love and equality is

different from Pliny’s. Therefore, it is Paul’s intention to ask for more than what

will be asked in Pliny’s world. Barclay (1991) supports Church’s conclusion.

By comparing the two letters, he suggests that it is natural for Paul to do likewise.

The main reason is that Paul’s emphasis is different from Pliny’s as much as the

expected reconciliation is concerned. Paul emphasises the fact that Onesimus

had become a new person when he was converted to Christianity; therefore, he

deliberately does not mention the remorse.

Secondly, Church (1978) suggests that Philem is a public letter rather

than a private letter. He argues that Paul has grabbed the occasion to exhort a

whole community on the principle of practical Christian love by making use of

the deliberative rhetoric in his epistle. Church successfully establishes a new

direction to understand the epistle. He clearly demonstrates that Paul has

employed the common understanding of Christian love and relationship in

persuading Philemon to follow his request. There is a shift of focus from asking

for forgiveness to requesting a transformation of the relationship based on

Christian love. What is lacking is that Church does not explain explicitly how

the existing master-slave relationship is in contrast to Christian love,

relationships, and roles he mentions in the letter. Without providing a precise

antithesis that Paul is arguing against in the letter, Church cannot provide a

63
deeper interpretation of the letter, which can help us understand what he is

precisely arguing against and for in the letter.

Church (1978) is not the only one to argue that Paul’s primary concern

was relational. Craig S. de Vos (2001) proposes that “Paul’s concern would

appear to have been a perceptional and relational one rather than a structural

one” (p. 89). Building on Barclay’s (1991) argument that it is practically

complex and challenging for masters to manumit their Christian slaves, de Vos

(2001) disagrees that Paul was “deliberately ambiguous” as he felt unable to

make a clear and substantial one. The main argument of de Vos is that he points

out that social structures, including the family, patron-client, and freedman, are

suppressive in nature. He makes the point that “the act of manumission did not

significantly change the circumstances of most slaves, or how they were

perceived or treated” (De Vos, 2001, p. 89). Therefore, it is unlikely that Paul

was requesting for manumission. Then, he proposes that, based on Philem verse

16, Paul does not aim to change the legal and structural relationship but the

fundamental relationship between master and slave.

Although I agree with de Vos’s insight, his argument is not substantial

enough. His argument mainly relies on attributing the social structure to three

commonly known concepts: authoritarianism, patriarchalism, and patronage. In

order to justify that Paul’s primary concern is transforming the relationship from

en sarki to en kuriō, we need a detailed analysis of the worldly relationships and

how they conflict with the teaching of Paul. In this perspective, de Vos’s

argument is not substantial enough.

In his work, Rediscovering Paul, Norman Petersen (1985) argues from

a social anthropological approach that the social roles used by Paul to describe

64
different actors in the letters were intended to create the tension to be resolved.

Based on the theory of sociology of knowledge, Petersen suggests that we

should not look at the letter’s literary level and the narrative world that can be

reconstructed from the information given in the letter. He distinguishes his

method with the sociological approach in which social anthropology will be

based on the “typical patterns of social behaviour” and focus on “shared ways

of understanding and behaviour.” Following this basic assumption, he argues

that writers can use language to give orders and manipulate their fellows who

share the same beliefs and experiences. Again, he proposes that research works

back and forth on both the literary and social worlds. By looking at how

different institutions and relations constitute the social world, the sociological

researcher makes use of these relations and the self-definition of different social

roles to read the narrative world reconstructed. This is the theoretical approach

from sociology Peterson uses to read Philem.

Having reconstructed the narrative world from the letter, Petersen

(1988) tries to use the social anthropological theory to investigate the

relationship between different actors in the narrative world. He argues that there

is a tension between the social roles in two different domains – church and

society. He then proposes a bold but highly plausible claim that “Onesimus may

have fled because he found Philemon to be a bad master.” Petersen substantially

argues that Paul has intentionally used different social roles in order to argue

for manumission given his symbolic universe. However, the content he asserts

into the relationship between different social roles was too general. Wayne

Meeks (2007, p. 41) also points out “the relatively small role he (Petersen)

allows for specific facts.” Without giving the support of detailed historical facts

65
concerning different specific social relations Petersen identified, the subsequent

analysis becomes less convincing and trivial.

I agree with Richard Horsley’s (1997) criticism that there are problems

interpreting the content of both the churchly and worldly relationships. In the

churchly relationships, Petersen (1988 barely quotes other undisputed Pauline

letters to sustain his argument. This selective interpretation may result in a

partial and sometimes biased interpretation. On the other hand, he also uses

general information concerning those social roles in the worldly relationships,

such as the relationship between slave and master. He does not provide any new

findings to support his assertions made on the master and slave relationship. For

example, Petersen (1985) proposes verses 15–17 to be interpreted in the

following way. First, he observes that “both in the flesh and in the Lord” refer

to two social domains. Second, he points out that “the role names ‘slave,’

‘brother,’ and ‘partner’ refer to structural positions: first in the domain of the

world and second and third in the domain of the church.” Sociologically,

Onesimus now plays two social structural roles in relation to Philemon.

With reference to 1Corinthians 7:21–24, Petersen (1988) argues that

Paul here mainly tries to bring their relations in the church into conformity with

their structural ground, but he makes no efforts to change the social structure.

He further suggests that the role of the master is “undercut” by bringing the

churchly relations of brotherhood between the two. Although Petersen’s

argument is logically sound, it is not supported by historical evidence and the

whole intention of the letter. Petersen simply takes for granted the difficulties

of one transforming from one social role to another. On the contrary, this thesis

argues that Paul understands well the difficulties for Philemon to transform

66
from one role to another; therefore, he uses different arguments to persuade

Philemon rhetorically.

In short, Petersen (1985) is right in pointing out that Paul is addressing

the conflicting relationship between Philemon and Onesimus in two different

domains. However, his method, which focuses on the narrative world, creates

some significant bias in his analysis. Also, only using selective verses from

Paul’s letters and using too-general historical evidence in the argument further

makes his argument less convincing.

Regarding the conflict of the relationship between slave and master in

Christian brotherhood, Barclay (1991) suggests that it would be challenging to

either manumit or retain the slave within a Christian household. The reasons he

proposes are all practical problems in the two scenarios mentioned above. He

rightly points out that there is great tension in a Christian household between

master and slave.

However, he wrongly assumes the ultimate concern for Paul is a

practical matter. I do not intend to refute the fact that there are practical

problems regarding whether to manumit or not manumit Onesimus. However,

one more important question we have to address is what is more likely to be the

major concern of Paul for a brother in Christ. Besides the practical problems, is

there any other more critical concern for Paul in the letter? Thus, there is the

need to bring in Paul’s theological and ethical thoughts to help explore what is

more likely to be Paul’s primary concern in the letter.

Harrill (2006) suggests that Philem can be identified as a genre called

the “journeyman apprentice” contract, which Paul uses to recommend

Onesimus for “apprenticeship in the service of the gospel.” He posits that Paul,

67
a master craftsman, requested Onesimus to train him as an apprentice. The

parallels Harrill infers from journeyman-apprentice formulae include the

following: a command for the slave to obey (v. 8), a reference to the slave

“serving” under an agreement (v. 13), the recommended training will turn a

“useless” slave (i.e., one unskilled in any particular trade) into a useful one, both

to the master craftsman and its original owner,” a penalty clause by which the

master promises payment of any liabilities that might accrue (v. 19) in the event

of sickness or unproductivity due to absenteeism, and the assurance to return

the slave, using the language of receipts (v. 12). Paul also proposes to the would-

be apprentice slave for new obligations as a complete business partner. Thus,

Paul, Philemon, and Onesimus can be unequal partners in a common koinonia,

just as we can have younger and elder brothers in a family.

In a separate discussion, Harrill (2006) has vehemently criticized Paul

for advancing less evidence of “Onesimus’ own story” and more of his own

participation and profound implication in ancient slavery. Paul judges

Onesimus and his action in weak moral division into “useful” and “useless.” He

says the letter says nothing about whether the historical Onesimus was “really

useful.” Instead, Paul describes and recommends the slave in terms of

stereotypes and flat moral polarities. Harrill argues,

[E]ven if journeyman-apprentice contracts provide the best

interpretative context in which to read Philem, the affective
language of the letter is still a cliché. This is because Paul treats
Onesimus instrumentally, as a ‘thing’ to be transferred, owned, and
used (Harrrill, 2006, p. 79)

There is no proof from the letter that Paul and Philemon actually listened to

what the powerless Onesimus may have wanted to do. Paul did not consider

Onesimus’ wishes important enough to be mentioned to Philem. For Harrill

68
(2006), it is ridiculous to think that Onesimus did not want any other life than

serving Paul and his gospel as an apprentice. He claims that Onesimus the slave

was “a living tool caught between two masters conferring on the use of his

labour” (Harrill, 2006, p. 80).

Two edited books have been published. Onesimus Our Brother,

published in 2012, argues that it is necessary and justifiable to read Philem from

the margins. From a methodological perspective, the book seeks to demonstrate

two main points. Firstly, there is a bias in the traditional, mainstream

Eurocentric interpretation. Showing that there is a grand narrative determining

what is “order” and “disorder” in different cultures and societies, the book

argues that there is a need to have “a mini-narrative” and readings from the

margins. Secondly, grounded in the postmodern framework, the book

demonstrates different possible readings from the margins. It is right to point

out the ideological bias underlying the traditional Eurocentric interpretation of

Philem, especially in the period when slavery was still prevailing in America

and Europe. However, the other way around is not necessarily the case. In order

to clear all those biases in interpretation, I suggest one should return to

discussing whether the premises used in the interpretation have any bias or are

sufficiently grounded both historically and theologically. I do not seek to refute

the reading from the margins, as suggested in this book, but suggest the reading

should be grounded more solidly on different grounds, which this thesis may

help to provide.

Another edited book requiring our attention is Philemon in Perspective,

published in 2010. The book is a product of a colloquium held in 2008 in South

Africa. As the book’s name implies, it does not aim at giving a new coherent

69
interpretation of Philem but at showing various perspectives concerning the

interpretation of the letter. The book provides excellent insights into some

specific issues concerning the letter, which have been used in this thesis.

However, the book does not provide a specific direction and framework to yield

a coherent interpretation of Philem.

The purpose of Philem

Closely related to the challenge of establishing the actual occasion of Philem is

the question about the precise details or parameters of the letter’s request. What

does Paul mean by all the direct and indirect imperatives such as “have him

back, no longer a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother” (v. 16a);

“welcome him as you welcome me” (v. 27); “refresh my heart in Christ” (v.

20b); and “you will even do more than I say” (v. 21b)? Is Paul requesting for

legal manumission of the slave, a transformed master-slave relationship, or is

he just asking the slave for missionary service? Critical readers and

commentators have different positions on this issue.

According to Barclay (1991) and Jeal (2010), Paul does not ask for

Onesimus to be freed (manumission). They argue that Paul deliberately keeps

his request vague because both options open to Philemon are fraught with

problems. If he manumits Onesimus, he sets a precedent that would make him

unpopular with the other slave owners. It would also mean he would have to

manumit any other Christian slaves in his home, causing either resentment

among the other slaves or a sudden rush of slaves to ‘convert’ so as to obtain

the same benefits.

Also, he will be seen to be rewarding a slave who ought to have been

disciplined. On the other hand, if he does not free him, how does he treat him

70
as a brother? Does he treat him differently at church gatherings than at other

times? The wording of Paul’s request is such that it is ambiguous. It could be

interpreted as a request for manumission or for a new relationship in which

Onesimus is both slave and brother. “Thus, we are left with the particular irony

of a letter which is framed with consummate skill, to induce Philemon to act in

the way Paul wants and yet leaves extraordinarily unclear what exactly is being

requested” (Barclay, 1991, p. 174).

De Vos (2001) argues that Paul was not being ambiguous. After all, he

expects to be obeyed; therefore, he must have given a command. He asks the

question, “What difference would manumission make here?” He constructs a

cogent argument that manumission, though it might bring some relaxing of

constraints and punishment, did not significantly alter the relationship between

slave and master. He points to several examples from ancient Roman society

indicating that freedmen or women could still be expected to carry out similar

if not the same duties as before manumission, be punished as harshly for

disappointing their masters, and remained disenfranchised and could even be

sold again. Even if Paul had asked for manumission, de Vos claims, it would

not necessarily have impacted the relationship that existed between Philemon

and Onesimus.

De Vos (2001) concludes that Paul was asking for Onesimus to be

treated as a brother and, even more radically, to be treated as a guest (v. 17).

While a brother must be treated with care and respect, a guest must receive the

best a host had to offer. The honour of the host was linked to the honour of his

guest. A guest took precedence over everyone in the household except the host’s

71
parent (de Vos, 2001). What Paul was asking for Onesimus was the freedom,

care and honour worthy of his new status as a brother in Christ.

DeSilva (2010) judges that Paul desired Philemon to return Onesimus

back to him to be a companion and help, a service which Philemon ought to be

providing, but perhaps cannot act personally due to his own responsibilities to

the family and church. Being informed of Paul’s need in this way would make

Philemon want to respond positively to his patron or friend. It would also make

his refusal to help a friend in such circumstances unacceptable. However, if Paul

wants to see Onesimus being treated as a brother within the household, it seems

too easy an option for Philemon to send Onesimus to Paul and rid himself of an

embarrassing situation. Onesimus is more likely to stay with Philemon and live

out this new relationship at least until Paul visits when Onesimus might be

emancipated to assist Paul as the “new Timothy” (Lucas, 2006). This might be

the “even more” that Paul expects Philemon to do (v. 21). Therefore, what Paul

is asking for is far more radical and costlier than manumission. He asks for an

improved condition for the slave Onesimus in the master’s household.

Rhetorical techniques in Philem

Interpreters have diverse opinions on the precise nature of Paul’s

rhetorical strategy, but all concur that Paul was very strategic in the way that he

communicates with Philemon. Judith Ryan (2005, p. 192) accurately remarks,

“Despite its brevity, this masterpiece of persuasion makes full use of ancient

rhetoric…” The conditions of Onesimus’ situation can only be fully understood

when one appreciates the political and manipulative lengths that Paul went to

secure Philemon’s acquiescence.

72
 Paul invented an eclectic group of addressees for this letter, creating an

atmosphere of accountability for Philemon. Specifically, he delivered the letter

not only to Philemon, Apphia and Archippus but also to the entire church that

meets in Philemon’s home. Thus, the audience included multiple people on both

the sending and receiving ends. Philemon would have felt that Paul’s personal

communique was being read aloud by two groups of people. Although a

personal letter of communication to Philemon, it was also a public one.

Lokkesmoe (2015) has drawn attention to some of the more obvious

rhetorical strategies that Paul employed. For example, Paul classifies himself as

a prisoner and an older man, rather than emphasising his apostolic status (verses

1, 8, 9, 14, 23, 21). Even though Philippians, Ephesians, and Colossians are also

written from prison, Paul did not designate himself ‘a prisoner’ right at the

onset. What peculiar reason did Paul have in mind for designating himself

‘prisoner of Christ’ at the prescript of Philem? It perhaps was devised to elicit

empathy and admiration on the part of the readers.

Another interpreter who has isolated rhetorical devices in Philem is

Todd D. Still. He summarised that Paul applauds Philemon, suspends mention

of Onesimus’ name; devises wordplays on Onesimus’ name; connects response

to Onesimus as a response to himself; prompts Philemon of his debt of gratitude

to him; “requests Philemon to refresh his heart; and asks that Philemon prepare

a guest room” for his apostolic visitation (Still, 2009, p. 94)

Petersen (1985) puts forward a remarkable array of rhetorical insights

for this epistle. He recreates a story out of the letter and analyses how Paul

presents the actions in the story in succession. Petersen then likens the

referential sequence of events in the letter to the poetic sequence of events (i.e.,

73
the way that Paul presented them). Finally, he takes note of what Paul moved

out of order and exposes the rhetorical function of these changes. Petersen’s

reconstruction of the story behind the letter (his referential sequence) is

organised like this: (a) Philemon owes a debt to Paul, (b) Paul is imprisoned; (c)

Onesimus runs away and acquires a debt to Philemon, (d) Onesimus is

catechised by an imprisoned Paul, (e) Paul hears of Philemon’s love and faith,

(f) Paul sends Onesimus back to Philemon, (g) Paul sends a letter of appeal to

Philemon and offers to repay Onesimus’ debt; (g) Onesimus and the letter

arrive; (i) Philemon responds to Paul’s appeal, (10) Paul’s anticipated visit to

Philemon (Peterson, 1985, p. 70). This is the story that Petersen assumes is

behind the letter, though not how Paul presents it in the text of Philem itself.

Petersen remarks that Paul makes three strategic modifications in order to

influence Philemon to respond favourably.

This is a brilliant insight on Petersen’s part, and it is evident by these

moves that Paul is making a rhetorical effort to concurrently cajole Philemon

and apologise for a serious offence on Onesimus’ part. Petersen also effectively

shows Paul’s reforming of roles in the epistle. He notes that according to secular

conventions, Philemon enacts the roles of both a master and debtee. Onesimus,

conversely, is the slave and debtor. Petersen (1985) argues that Paul invents a

new set of metaphorical or spiritual roles. In that structure, Philemon is

figuratively Paul’s brother, debtor, fellow-worker, and partner. Onesimus, in

Paul’s reckoning, is a child to him and a brother to Philemon. In this instance,

as with the re-arranging of the story elements, Petersen has shown that Paul

utilised a strategic device of heightening the positive to get Philemon to

succumb.

74
 While Petersen (1985) does a great job of investigating the letter’s

rhetoric, he concentrates only on Paul and Philemon to the total neglect of

Onesimus. For instance, he writes, “…Onesimus’ storyline is not the one to

follow; his story is a story within a story” (Petersen, 1986, p. 163). In Petersen’s

view, the referential sequence starts and ends with Paul and Philemon; therefore,

the actual story is about them and their koinonia. In this regard, Petersen

overlooks an essential point of the letter – what it means for the toothless slave

Onesimus. If we were to strip away the greeting and farewell sections of the

epistle (vv. 1-3, 22-25), as well as the purely rhetorical discussion about

Philemon’s value to Paul (vv. 4-7), the greater portion of the letter is about

Paul’s appeal for Onesimus (vv. 8-21). That being the case, it is evident that

Onesimus and his helpless condition constituted the driving force for Paul

writing the letter in the first place. Paul would not inscribe a letter to Philemon

just to greet him, eulogise him, and then ask him for a guestroom ahead of an

impending visit. This is not to say that Paul’s relationship with Philemon is

inconsequential. It is obvious to submit that Onesimus was the prime reason that

Paul composed the letter, and the majority of the message is about Onesimus’

situation. Because Onesimus’ life was at issue with this letter, Petersen’s claim

that Onesimus’ story is secondary within Philem is erroneous and unsustainable.

Other readers such as Church (1978) and Ryan (2005) have maintained

that Paul’s letter epitomises the three classical components of deliberative

rhetoric, namely, ethos, pathos, and logos. The objective of deliberative

rhetoric, according to Church, is “to exhort or dissuade”, which is

unquestionably applicable in the situation of Philem (Church, 1978, p. 19).

Ryan (2005) links ethos (i.e., a believable character) in the thanksgiving section

75
with an expression of Paul’s appreciation for Philemon’s love and generous

character. He also identifies pathos (i.e., empathetic emotions) as the foundation

of the appeal (v. 9) that aims to evoke brotherly caring relations between

Philemon and Onesimus. Finally, Ryan shows that logos (i.e., reason, or logical

proofs) stands behind Paul’s appeal to love, but she maintains that “perhaps

Paul’s logical rhetoric is used to the greatest effect where he downplays

Onesimus’ temporary absence as he effectively places the entire appeal within

the context of God’s providential plan” (Ryan, 2005, pp. 192-193).

While Philem is considered unique in many ways, it seems apparent that

the classic elements of ethos, pathos and logos are interwoven throughout the

epistle. Added to Judith Ryan’s illustrations, I would argue that ethos is

displayed in Paul’s refusal to classify himself as an apostle of Christ in the

prescript. Paul’s emphasis on the fact that he is ageing, as well as his profuse

use of emotional language like splagchna (i.e., the entrails or viscera), is a

perfect example of pathos. Peter Lampe (2010) has labelled this rhetorical

strategy as ‘emotionalising.’ He writes, “By using the word ta splagchna three

times in Philemon, Paul directly refers to his innermost feelings.” Lampe goes

on to explain that the letter is replete with “conflicting emotions that Paul can

exploit…” (Lampe, 2010, p. 62). He further enumerated some emotions that

Paul leveraged to his rhetorical advantage: (a) Philemon’s anger; (b) Onesimus’

fear of Philemon; (c) Onesimus’ trust in Paul; (d) Paul’s love for Philemon; (e)

pity for Paul the prisoner; (f) respect for Paul the apostle; (g) Philemon’s

indebtedness or thankfulness toward Paul; (h) Philemon’s honour and shame;

(i) curiosity of the house church about the situation (Lampe, 2010, pp. 62-66).

If, as Lampe (2010, p. 66) contends, “all of the above-mentioned feelings are

76
‘in the air,’ how does that affect Paul’s argumentation in the letter? Lampe

concludes that Paul’s “main rhetorical task is to calm Philemon’s reactive

aggression toward Onesimus and to prevent him from seeking revenge for his

pagan slave’s misbehaviour” (p. 67).

Lampe is undoubtedly correct in identifying all these emotional

dynamics in the letter. Paul’s rhetorical strategies would not have only

influenced Philemon; they would have moved his listeners, who would, in turn,

exert their own pressure on Philemon.

To sum up, the compelling fact about these rhetorical theories is that

each makes good sense in the light of Paul’s letter. First, Paul definitely

presented the material in the most premeditated order possible to emphasise the

positive (Petersen, 1984). Second, he manifested all three rhetorical conventions

of his day (Church, 1978) and played on the emotions of the readers (Lampe,

2010). Paul made adequate use of every part of his letter; he loaded every phrase

with rhetoric to realise his goal of Philemon’s acquiescence. The fact that Paul

so skilfully employed these manoeuvres shows that he is indeed striving to

persuade Philemon against certain actions, which strongly suggests that

Onesimus’ actions were quite serious and necessitated such intervention.

Organization of the Study

The study is structured into six chapters. Chapter One introduces the entire

study. First, it looks at background information and the statement of the

problem. It also outlines the specific purposes of the study with their related

research questions. Again, it discusses the methodology of the study and

reviews related literature.

77
 Chapter Two is titled, “Background to Slavery in the 1st Century C.E.

Greco-Roman communities.” It explains the concept of slavery, who was a slave

in the 1st Century Roman empire, forms of slaves, ways into slavery,

manumission practices, the concept of fugiivus servus (runaway slave), and the

views of classical philosophers and poets on slavery. Chapter Three is captioned

‘Distanciation: An Exegetical Analysis of Philem.’ It looks at the critical

reading of Philem to expose the persuasiveness of the letter.

Under the heading, ‘Contextualisations of Philem’, the fourth chapter

discusses some meanings users have put on the Philem in their contexts. It

specifically examines how Philem was understood in the 18th-century

community of St. Thomas in the West Indies Islands, as well as how the text is

explained by Ghanaian Christian parents and fictive children in their unique

contexts. In Chapter Five, which is ‘Appropriations of Philem’, the study

examines the pragmatic application of Philem in difficult circumstances

involving Christian masters and their servants. Finally, the sixth and last chapter

gives a summary, conclusion and recommendation for further investigations.

78
 CHAPTER TWO

BACKGROUND TO SLAVERY IN 1ST CENTURY C. E. GRECO-

ROMAN WORLD

Introduction

Given that the NT authors and the people about whom they wrote, lived in a

world where multiple cultures met, including Jewish, Roman, and Greek, at

least, it is crucial to examine the cultural practice of slavery because even if not

directly stated in our Philem, it does still have relevance to the meaning of the

text. Thus, the Chapter looks at the definition of slavery, types of enslavement,

modes of enslaving or getting enslaved; treatment of slaves; flight from slavery;

liberation or manumission practices; and philosophical thoughts on the

institution in the first century C.E.

What is slavery in Greco-Roman society?

In Greco-Roman thoughts, slavery was “the status or condition of a

person over whom any or all powers attaching to the right of ownership are

exercised” (Finley, 1998). Slavery was a legal matter, instead of ethnicity or

race. The status of the slave as a property or an asset ultimately left the owner

in possession of virtually unlimited rights of exploitation and the slave with only

the flimsiest and often only theoretical guard against abuses from the owner.

What distinguished Greco-Roman slavery from other forms of subordination

and exploitation is that the personhood of the slave was the legal property of the

master; the slave’s will was subjected to the owner’s authority, and he or she

was obliged to serve in any way the master deemed fit without any right to

objection (Combes, 1998). Roman law expresses the complex relations in the

slavery institution with crystalline sharpness. The master was called dominus.

79
His power, (i.e., dominium) to use, abuse, and sell slaves was virtually absolute

and exclusive. Slaves were the living dead. Legal status was absolute: all

humans were either slaves or free (Digest, 1.5.3).

Bartchy (1973) provides some vital information about slavery in the

antique world. He writes, “Throughout history, a large number of societies have

chosen not to kill their vanquished enemies but to force them to serve as slaves,

subjecting them to a ‘social death,’ separated from blood kin, from homeland

and legal protections enjoyed by free persons” (Bartchy, 197, p. 12). However,

the Greeks and Romans independently changed such enslavement into

something original, ‘namely, an institutionalized system of large-scale

employment of slave labour in both the countryside and the cities’ (Finley,

1998). Rome was incomparable in exploiting slaves. Enslavement for debt was

the primary means by which Rome acquired slaves in the Republic’s early days.

However, the expansion of the Empire corresponded with the influx of slaves

into Rome. To both masters and slaves, slavery was seen as an inevitable and

unavertable condition of life.

From Roman law and ideologies, a slave was conceived as a person with

a definite financial value under the ownership of another person. One became a

slave, due to circumstances that the law regulated. He or she was a chattel or

property of the owner and served the household as an alienated member. Even

his or her social movement was connected to the master’s household. The slaves

had to follow their owners’ orders without any exception (Patterson, 1982).

Slaves were handled like objects; they had no rights. They did not even possess

the right to life (Justinian Digesta 1.6.1.1). Ste. Croix (1981, p. 22) defined the

80
word “slave” as “the status or condition of a person over whom all the powers

attached to the right of ownership are exercised.”

Therefore, the relation between master and slave was appropriately

defined by “the slave being called the master’s possession or property.” Every

slave had a master/mistress to whom he/she was subjected. Moreover, this

domination was of a peculiar kind. Unlike the authority one freeman sometimes

has over another, the master’s power over the slave was unrestricted.

Secondly, slaves were in a lower condition as compared to freemen. In

the ordinary sense of the word, a slave is a person who is the property of another,

politically and socially at a lower level than the mass of the people and

performing compulsory labour. Slaves are in unqualified servitude and are the

absolute properties of their masters. The slave is not regarded as a person but as

a lifeless article, left to the discretion of the master. Slavery is characterised by

human persons being as an object of possession by another. In a sociological

sense, it is an organ in the social body performing a particular role. The social

function of slavery is compulsory labour that absorbs the whole personality of

the forced labourer.

These features of ancient slavery underlie Patterson’s conceptualisation

of (ancient) slavery as “the permanent violent domination of natally alienated

and generally dishonoured persons” (p. 13). Moreover, this permanent and

rootless alienation of slaves in the family or society within which they function

was a fairly distributed feature of all slaves, irrespective of the cruelty or

kindness with which they may be treated. Therefore, slavery was the reality of

the slave as a legal item or property of another and bound to serve him/her in

every capacity desired by the master/mistress.

81
 Slavery must be distinguished from associated phenomena like children

and wives subjected to the head of the family. In primaeval eras, the condition

of children in the early phases of social life was understood to be one of

complete subjection to the head of the family, the pater familias, who had over

them unrestricted power, extending to the power of life and death. Wives were

the absolute property of the husband.

However, other social organs somewhat resembled slavery since they

relatively performed virtually the same function. For instance, a debtor may

pawn one of the members of his family or himself. The central fact is that the

pawn is in bondage, however temporarily, that he has to serve his master.

Therefore, so long as the debt remains unpaid, the pawn was equivalent to a

slave. He had to serve the master without any limit; the master’s control over

him/her was therefore unlimited. Thus, practices such as debt slavery,

household and domestic debt slaves, agricultural debt slaves, child trafficking,

forced (child) labour, and serfdom are analogous to slavery or bear resemblance

to slavery in some of their effects. Sadly, the number of people affected by these

practices is much more significant at present than that resulting from crude

slavery.

The Greco-Roman empire is considered a slave society in terms of the

structural location of slavery: prominent groups relied to a significant degree on

slave labour to produce surplus and sustain their position of power (de Ste

Croix, 1981; Finley, 1998; Hopkins, 1978; Patterson, 1983). In important areas,

slaves were not merely present but supported what has been termed a ‘slave

mode of production,’ a mode that rested both on an integrated system of

enslavement, slave trade, and slave employment in production, and on “the

82
systematic subjection of slaves to the control of their masters in the process of

production and reproduction (Lovejoy, 2000, p. 10)

Slaves were being used in an enormous variety of activities: they

functioned as estate managers, field hands, shepherds, hunters, domestic

servants, artisans, construction workers, retailers, miners, clerks, teachers,

doctors, midwives, wetnurses, textile workers, potters, and entertainers. In

addition to private-sector employment, they served in public administration and

military units.

Also, slaves belonged to private individuals as well as the state,

communities, temples, and partnerships. Some were put at the disposal of fellow

slaves. Their obligations ranged from the most basic tasks of footmen and water

carriers to the complex duties of stewards and business managers. Slaves could

be kept in chains or placed in positions of trust, resided in their owners’ homes

or were apprenticed or rented out. They were found in every part of the Empire.

Emancipated slaves were active in a similarly wide range of occupations, and

in addition, rose into the most senior echelons of private and public

administration (Bradley, 1998).

Forms of slavery in Greco-Roman 1st Century CE

Different forms of slavery coexisted side by side or were mixed in those

decades. For example, some slaves worked in the household (domestic slaves),

farmland or agricultural field slaves, and others were confined to the mines or

quarry sites. The severity of one’s enslavement was roughly related to one’s

location or field of work. However, in theory, all slaves found themselves on

the margins of society, with no legal right to inheritance (Bradley, 2011).

83
 Domestic slaves were in urban households as cooks, butlers, wet nurses,

errand slaves or personal attendants, physicians or a combination of these roles.

They lived a relatively comfortable life. Some domestic slaves had much better

living conditions than some poor free persons and hence saw themselves as

privileged. Nevertheless, the domestic slave was in no way exempted from

abuses. Since they were always in the purview of the master, these slaves

suffered anxiety, fear and terrible abuses.

There were those slaves committed to the mines or fields. Generally,

they had little or no hope for freedom nor an improvement in health because the

task was miserable and led to a slow death. A slave in other social sphere

locations could be transferred to the mining site when the master felt

dissatisfied, displeased, or betrayed by the slave. Thus, rebel slaves, arrested

fugitives, and those accused of misconduct such as insubordination or treachery

were often confined to the mines as an alternative punishment for them to toil

till death. Unless ransomed by relatives or pardoned by the master, the slave

condemned to the mines had death as the only sure hope for the rest of the

miserable life. Some of the rural slaves worked in agricultural fields. Jesus’

parable of the tenants mimics this type of rural setting. Usually, the slaves work

under a freedman or another slave to produce economic wealth for the master.

Even though the task of slaves in the farmlands was tedious, it was

comparatively better off than those condemned to the mines.

Between the relatively ‘privileged’ domestic slaves and those practically

exposed to a slow and painful death stood what might be called ‘a slave middle

class’, consisting of skilled craftsmen such as artisans, masons, carpenters,

bricklayers, administrators, secretaries, tax-collectors, educators, and nurses. In

84
the Greco-Roman era, some highly intelligent and well-trained slaves who did

public work had chances of being manumitted and or of marrying into the

owner’s household or that of another free person (Garnsey & Saller, 2014).

Irrespective of where the slave is located, his/her treatment largely

depended on the character and status of the owner and his family. Existing laws

on slavery were not automatically enforced or applied in practical matters on

slavery (Garnsey, 1999). There is a considerable notion among scholars that

Onesimus is a domestic slave of his master Philemon. There is no hint about the

slave’s professional status in Philem.

Ways into Slavery in the Grace-Roman world

Entering into slavery in Greco-Roman communities could happen in various

ways. The most frequent way into slavery was through warfare. Just as in the

famous ancient Near Eastern empires of Babylonia, Assyria, Egypt, and Israel,

so in Greece and Rome prisoners of war were condemned to servitude unless

they were instantly ransomed. Waging war ultimately meant “who would have

the power to enslave whom” (Braund, 2011, p. 115). Though they usually made

sure to have legitimate motives for instigating war, the possibility of enslaving

their opponents and seizing their goods was an important incentive that

prompted the launching of many military campaigns. Notable individuals in

Greco-Roman society derived their wealth from the booty of wars.

In Greco-Roman communities, slaves could also be acquired from

traders at marketplaces. “Slaves were captured and then sold to small scale

dealers who took care of distribution” (Braund, 2011, p. 113). Some were

experts in this form of business, but on the whole, everyone could purchase and

sell slaves. There is evidence of an important slave market in the Roman empire.

85
There were open-slave markets in the Greek cities of Athens and Corinth, in the

Near East of Tyre and Ephesus (where Paul was imprisoned) and in the West,

Rome. In the times of Cicero, the price of an able-bodied adult equated to the

yearly income of a free artisan (Strabo 14.5.5). Usually, the buyer was

responsible for the payment of private debts the slave might have incurred under

his former owner. Slaves were bought by states, cities, temples, shop owners,

and other private citizens. The Aegean island of Delos was allegedly able to

export 10,000 slaves per day (Strabo 14.5.5). This high number leads one to

think that Strabo might have been employing hyperbolic language when making

his statement. However, it reflects that by 166 B.C., this island was thought to

be a major site for slave trading, where slave traders and pirates could take down

the merchandise. Also, pirates or human hunters indiscriminately caught people

to either extract ransom money from relatives or be sold on the market.

Another way of becoming a slave was debt-bondage. Privation and

famine compel one to accept terms of service and maintenance from other(s) to

which under normal circumstances he/she would never submit. In some

situations, the desperately needy person offers himself “security to his creditor

until the debt was repaid” (Gardener, 2011, p. 415). This form of debt-bondage

did not take away the debtor’s freedom and dignity but afforded a grace period

where he could find the resource or repay his creditor with his labour. The main

reasons for self-sale should be located in the instinctual desire of human beings

to survive or stay alive at all costs. People, therefore, surrendered their lives to

harsh and even unimaginable conditions in exchange just for life. If the debtor

defaulted to square his/her debt, he/she could be sold abroad (Gardener, 2011).

86
Even though debt bondage was made illegal by the Roman emperors, it was still

a valid form of servitude that continued throughout the empire.

The exposure of infants is a well-attested practice in Greco-Roman

communities. People would usually get rid of the baby in the first ten days of

life, before the baby had gone through the purification rituals and formally been

received into the family (Grubbs, 2013; Patterson, 1982). This phenomenon

appears to have been deemed a lesser evil since the methods of contraception

and abortion were unreliable and dangerous. The surviving baby would then be

taken by a family that would most likely use the child or sell him/her as a slave.

One could also become a slave through house birth. After the end of the

great Roman wars of expansion, an increasing proportion of slaves in the

Graeco-Roman world were born and raised in the households of slave owners.

Some house-born slaves were begotten by the master and borne by female

slaves. Others also stemmed from voluntary or enforced breeding between male

and female slaves. Slave breeding was more economical and desirable than

slave buying unless a bought slave was a skilled artisan, a businessman, or a

teacher. At the time of Paul, most slaves had never tasted freedom because they

were house born. Perhaps, this phenomenon of house-born slaves made classical

theorists like Aristotle theorise that slavery had its foundations in nature. In

Politics, Aristotle observes that “from the hour of their birth, some (persons) are

marked out for subjection, others for rule…Some persons are by nature free,

and others are slaves, and … for this latter, slavery is both expedient and right.”

To sum up, one becomes a slave in the Greco-Roman context as a result

of captivity by war, condemnation of a court, birth from a slave mother, child

exposure, and debt bondage.

87
The runaway slave (fugitivus servus)

In the ancient world, runaway or fugitive slaves were outlaws. People shunned

them out of fear of the consequences of harbouring them. Keeping a fugitive

slave was prohibited by Roman law in both the East and West.

Flights took different forms and were spurred by varied motives. The

natural yearning for freedom, desire to return to one’s family, fear of master’s

threats, the experience of unjustifiable cruel treatment, a consciousness of some

misdeed, and hope for a better life elsewhere could individually or collectively

count as reasons underlying slave flight. Among these, it was most often

assumed that flights were prompted when the violence and abuse of masters

became unbearable. In other words, the wicked or harsh master often turned his

slaves into runaways. As a result, slaves often fled the flogging master.

However, the numerous legislations on slave flight coupled with the uncertain

future for the runaway slave and the terrible punishment for recaptured slaves

scared many slaves from risking running away. Thus, not all slaves who

suffered daily abuses in the form of beating, maiming, or torture chose to flee.

The runaway slave was “an outlaw who could be caught, starved, beaten,

raped, and killed by anyone met anywhere” (Bradley, 1988, p. 49). Survival for

the fugitives was highly uncertain because, before the fight, civil legislation did

not exist in their favour. The fear of possible recapture may compel the slave to

put the largest possible distance away from the master even though that never

assured safety. The runaway’s name, accent, language and conduct could betray

them and cause them not to be accepted by the local population. The risk of

being identified was highly critical to the fugitive. They were often hungry and

exposed to the elements.

88
 Furthermore, if he could find a job, the fugitive’s wages would be below

the minimum wage because of the many unemployed free persons and freedmen

who lived in poverty in the Empire. A fugitive would always feel hunted either

by his master, the state or local police or professional slave catchers. The

runway would always be worried about capture.

The master of a runaway slave usually issues a search warrant, and

whoever turns over such a person to the irate owner is richly rewarded. The

Roman law prohibited any conduct relating to harbouring a fugitive slave, and

so anyone found culprit would incur heavy penalties. In some earlier cultures,

aiding and abetting the flight of a slave attracted capital punishment as

enshrined in the Codex Hammurabi, dated in the 8th Century B.C.E. (Barth &

Blanke, 2000).

A master would chain his fugitive slave to impair his mobility. The

fugitive could expect to be “thrashed with the whip, imprisonment and

crucifixion and every type of punishment” (Barth & Blanke, 2000, p. 108). In

addition, the master could tattoo the forehead of the fugitive to present future

episodes of flights. One of the basic inscriptions marked on the fugitive’s

forehead is ‘retain me lest I flee’ (Harper, 1979, p. 257).

However, despite these precarious circumstances, there were a couple

of ways in which the fugitive’s flight could be successful. First of all, the slave

could seek asylum in the house of a free high standing person (usually, a friend

of the master) seeking intercession or go to the precincts of a shrine recognised

to offer refuge. In the late empire, the slave could also flee to a Christian church.

By the late 4th Century CE, the imperial state endorsed and reinforced

the church’s role as a place of temporary asylum. These two options are related

89
to the situation with Onesimus in Philem. The asylum giver would be innocent

of a crime if he examined the complaints of the slave and sent him back to the

legitimate owner or master usually with a written request or recommendation

on how the prodigal or slave should be treated. However, the convention

excluded seeking asylum at the home of a free person not befriending the slave’s

master (Nordling, 1991). Two letters of Pliny the Younger wrote in favour of a

freedman who had run away from his patron also typify this form. However, if

the asylum giver wanted to keep the fugitive, then the former must offer

compensation subject to the owner’s approval and keep the slave for lifelong

service, even though afterwards the asylum giver can sell the slave on the

market. Thus, fleeing for asylum in the house of a free person did not

automatically guarantee freedom. It was mostly an act meant to bring about a

‘change of master’ with no guaranteed lasting and better treatment.

An alternative option for the fugitive was to seek refuge in a temple.

Other monuments, such as statues of Roman emperors, later assumed a

protective function. However, the protection these sanctuaries or monuments

offered was temporary. After that, the priest would either reconcile with the

master or follow customary provisions and sell the slave to a new patron

(Harrill, 1995).

Not all masters probably adopted a pessimistic attitude and swallowed

the loss and remained inactive. Even though the search for a runaway slave

could prove futile in many cases, in order to deter other slaves from making the

same, intensive efforts had to be made for retrieving every fugitive, and there

were promises of reward for giving helpful hints or for catching the escaped

person. The master could solicit the support of other slave owners or the city’s

90
or state’s intelligence or even employ professional slave catchers to aid him

trace and restore the runaway slave. There were also potential traitors in every

part of the empire who were ready to give tip-offs when the fugitive’s owner

had published a warrant of apprehension and a reward for capture. Irrespective

of what caused or who facilitated the returned slave, his fate depended mainly

on the master. The returned slave might be whipped or beaten until he becomes

a cripple. He might also be branded on any part of the body the master wishes

to: the skin under his feet might be burnt off by glowing iron plates.

Alternatively, a metallic collar with his name address might be fixed around his

neck; he might even be killed to serve as a deterrent to himself and his fellow

slaves.

However, if the fugitive slave had found refuge with a benevolent and

wealthy or high standing friend of their master’s house and voluntarily returned

carrying an intercessory letter, there was a distinct possibility of a gracious and

kind reception by the owner. A similar picture is painted in Philem where Paul

intercedes on behalf of Philemon’s runaway slave, Onesimus.

In some instances, if the returned slave was a house slave, the master

may decide to sell him off to the mines. However, an escaped slave who

returned with an intercessory letter from a good and high-standing friend of the

master had a higher possibility of a benevolent or a hearty reception. Usually,

the intercessor would combine emotional, moral, utilitarian, financial, selfish or

altruistic, and rhetorical ploys to support his plea. Sometimes he may put the

master under some urgent pressure, yet the final decision over what happens to

the slave depended exclusively on the master (Barth & Blanke, 2000). Thus,

91
much of Paul’s persuasion in Philem seems to have been highly influenced by

the customary ways of handling problems between masters and their slaves.

Classical Philosophers and the Subject of Slavery

The subject of slavery is given mixed consideration by philosophers and great

thinkers of first-century C.E. By incorporating ideas from Plato, Aristotle

(Pol.1.5.1254b) stated that “some human beings were, by their nature, meant

for slavery because of the lack of intellectual capacities that are essential for an

autonomous life.” Hence, to Aristotle, slavery was a just and good thing for the

intrinsic benefit of the slave (Pol.1254a-1255a). Furthermore, he contended that

‘slavery is both expedient and just’ for those who are not free by nature because

one part of humanity should rule and others be ruled. He claims that the division

of humans into the inferior and superior binary originates from “the constitution

of the universe, the predestined rule of the soul over the body” (1254a). Slavery

then reveals “the moral superiority of the soul over the body” and rationalises

the subjugation of the barbarians to the Greeks. Thus, Aristotle considered

enslavement righteous, moral and profitable since it is an actual reflection and

application of the constitution of the universe.

However, this literary expression of Aristotle contradicted the teachings

on nature by the Sophists. They had earlier taught that human laws are not a true

reflection of nature. To them, by the good ordering of nature, all humans are

created equal. However, the law made by human beings is a tyrant that enforces

many things such as inequality, contrary to nature. It is nature’s will that all

humans relate as relatives, members of the same household, and citizens of the

universe endowed with the same inalienable rights. Differentiations in status,

sophists argue, are an artificial imposition on humankind by the superior power

92
only. Hence, they sought to evaluate slavery as an unjust product of human

decisions, power relations and anatural actions (Barth & Blanke, 2000).

Even though Sophists such as Antiphon and Xenophon were vehement

in their protest against slavery as an injustice committed by the strong against

the weak, their call was not heeded in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E.

Centuries later, Stoics philosophers like Euripides and Seneca, condemned

slavery in a similar radical spirit.

In Sophocles, Euripides said that the body could be enslaved but not the

mind. For him, natural laws are not fixed or absolute; even when someone is of

bad birth, the most important is a virtue; the name does make no difference; the

same birth by nature is noble and ignoble. Status is pride given by law, but

reason and understanding, which are true nobility, are given by God, not by

riches. It is clear that Euripides was concerned more about the difference

between good and evil persons rather than the question of the institution itself.

For him, slavery is not the ultimate threat to humanity because true freedom as

a peaceful state of mind was available to all humans, not only to free persons.

Other Stoic philosophers such as Zeno express the conviction that ‘only the wise

are free; bad people are slaves.’

Some of the Stoics also evaluated Aristotle’s views in Politics (i.e.,

1.125a; 1259b-1260b) and connected the ‘dots’ to support their stance on the

humanity of slaves. For instance, the slave though ‘an animated instrument,’

can learn human qualities such as temperance, courage, and justice, and thus

could become a ‘perfect slave.’ Younger Stoics such as Cicero, Seneca,

Epictetus, Dio Chrysostom, and Emperor Marcus Aurelius also championed

similar fundamental principles on freedom and slavery.

93
 Barth and Blanke (2000) have captured some of these teachings. Stoics

believe that slaves are human beings not things, cattle, and mere objects and

instruments, because they have souls, an inner life, and are capable of virtues.

The differentiation between Greeks and barbarians is invalid; by nature, both

slaves are children of Zeus and are as free as their masters. Freedom is not a

socio-political status under the law; instead, it is identified with moral conduct.

True freedom is inner freedom; a slave may be a better person than a master, as

exemplified by the imprisoned Socrates (Barth & Blanke, 2000).

One of the outstanding contemporary Stoics on slavery is Seneca. In

Epistle 47, Seneca teaches that ‘a slave is not just a slave but first of all a human

being, begotten the same way as fee person, living under the same sky, breathing

the same air dying as a free person dies.’ He also reiterates that ‘fortune has

equal rights over the slave and free so much that today’s slave may be free

tomorrow and vice versa’ hence ‘a master should value and judge his slaves by

their moral entity as humans, not by the servant work to which they are

assigned.’ They must associate with slaves on kindly and affable terms and seek

friends among them. A master ought to treat his inferiors as he would like to be

treated by his betters, making them respect and love rather than only fear him.

Seneca also gives counsel to slaves to ‘arise and make themselves worthy of the

deity and also be patient, and submit to the inevitable.’

As consolatory as these Stoics philosophers sounded, their dualistic

view on the body and soul and redefinition of freedom were only idealistic. It

would not be surprising that Seneca encouraged prudent masters to address their

slaves as brothers or treat them as such but nothing beyond this admonition.

These philosophers seem not to have made it their explicit or prime goal to

94
advocate the legal, social and economic emancipation of slaves. As Barth and

Blanke (200) have observed, the changing or radically uprooting of the ancient

institution of slavery was not given the primacy of importance in their

philosophising. Hence, some have doubted whether these teachings and

exhortations really offered any substantial consolation to slaves. However,

slaveowners who tended to exercise some humanity in their dealings with their

slaves would have embraced the teachings of the Stoics.

Also, years later, some Stoic thoughts were considered in Roman law.

For instance, in Digesta 1.5.4.1., Florentinus states that ‘slavery is a domination

of other people according to the laws of nations, but against nature’ and Ulpian

ruled in Digesta 1.1.4, that ‘all people are equal by nature.’ Thus, one is right to

argue that the Stoics’ teachings on the subject partly influenced Paul’s teachings

on slavery, especially the household code of Christian slaves and their masters

(Col. 3:22-4:1).

Manumission/Liberation and Freedom

The act or process of releasing a person from slavery was a regular and integral

part of Roman slavery. It was pretty distinct from emancipation, an Eighteenth-

century Enlightenment coinage expressing a moral and political conviction that

slavery – both as an institution and ideology – is repugnant to the aims of all

enlightened and just societies of human beings. By manumission, the ex-slave

became a freedman or freedwoman but with certain obligations towards the

former master in a patron-client relationship. The manumitted slave remains

with and serves the ex-master until the master passes away. A libertus ingratus

(i.e., an ungrateful freed person) faced a potential punitive punishment such as

relegation or banishment out of the patron’s house. When Paul exhorted slaves

95
and their possible liberation in 1 Corinthians 7:21, he spoke of the first-century

context. In that context, liberation opportunities for a slave would mean one of

the conventional manumission practices and not abolition in the modern sense

of these terms. Thus, Paul’s encouragement of manumission for slaves cannot

be taken as his aversion to slavery as an institution or ideology.

One can assume that all slaves had a common dream: freedom. “It is the

slave’s prayer that he be set free immediately” (Epictetus Diss. 4, 1, 33). Slaves

yearned, prayed, worked and used available opportunities to prepare means to

become free. It is the one social value that many people seem prepared to suffer

abuses or exploitation for it. According to Patterson (1998, p. 23), “freedom is

an inherent desire, a purely human need, so essential that it is a defining part of

one’s humanness. To set someone free is to take away whatever it is that

encumbers or endangers”. Some slaves starved themselves in order to save

money for buying themselves out of slavery. Others were also prepared to take

the risk of flight or revolt. Thus, people submit to all sorts of inhumane

treatment with the view that they will lay hold of this supreme value. Those

slaves on good terms with their masters might have asked for conditions of an

eventual release, and sometimes free members of their families or friends

offered a sum to rescue enslaved relatives.

However, in all this, the patron had the entitlement to retain the slave as

his property. Nothing obliged the master to free a slave; it was totally up to the

master’s benevolence. The Roman laws made no room for slaves to negotiate

or appeal to a court in their interest. It is suggested by some NT scholars that

slaves were usually manumitted after age thirty (30) or six years of servitude.

However, other classical evidence points to the contrary. For instance, Roman

96
senator Cicero, who rhetorically argued for a fixed age for the emancipation of

slaves, refused to manumit his personal domestic slave, Tiro, until the slave’s

golden birth anniversary (Harrill, 2010). This and other related evidence have

caused some scholars to evaluate Roman manumission as a slavery ideology

that served the master’s interest and reinforced the institution itself.

There were multiple motives behind manumission in Roman society.

Kindness could be assumed as a factor. Some masters also consolidated their

honour (dignitas) with the number of freedmen clients and proteges in their

households. Again, the emancipated could legally represent the master as an

agent in the master’s business transactions. Finally, when a master judges it to

be economically advantageous or relatively cheaper and less risky to employ

free labour than to give, especially in bad years, shelter, food, clothing or

medical care to a slave, not to mention the problems of discipline and flight, he

may release some of his slaves, especially those judged to be useless, lazy and

troublesome.

Also, debt slaves who have finished serving the given period, usually up

to when the debts and expenses incurred for maintenance had been repaid, could

be set free by their masters. A slave owner could reward a slave with a

manumission, especially when the slave had done some good work and had

proven faithful. A master could also give freedom to slaves who have become

indispensable members of the household or the neighbourhood, sometimes by

marriage with a son or daughter or friend of the house. Sometimes too, a

master’s motive for manumitting a slave would be purely his desire to be

admired by the community for his magnanimity. It was an act that could bring

honour to the master in his community and among his friends. Despite all these

97
possible reasons for which a master would release a slave, neither a promise of

nor an official manumission was a guarantee for lasting freedom (Barth &

Blanke, 2000). The manumission of slaves was mainly not an act of altruism.

Generally, there were two main forms of manumission in the Greco-

Roman communities: legal and sacral manumission. During Paul’s days even

though, Roman laws passed under the emperors were supposed to determine all

that was to be considered legal throughout the Empire, much older Greek,

Roman and Eastern traditions or conventions were still applied in their daily

lives (Barth & Blanke, 2000). In Greece, the difference between a freed person

and a slave was less conspicuous. Those freed could still be called ‘slaves,’ and

there was no bestowal of citizenship. As far back as the 5th Century B.C.E.., the

act of manumission in Greece was not a private nor an informal ceremony that

took place in the frame of the master’s home. Instead, laws prescribed that it be

ascertained by testament, called out in the street, in the theatre or before an altar.

In addition, there was to be an inscription on a stone or vessel to confirm the

validity of the manumission.

In Rome, the patron originally retained some rights over the slave who

had been set free, a provision enshrined in the Twelve Table Law of the 5th

Century B.C.E. Informal manumission was made either by giving a testament

to the slave or by the simple gesture of inviting the slave to share in a table or

festival community or in the circle of friends who served as a witness. This act,

however, did not confer Roman citizenship on the freedman. Only the formally

manumitted slaves through either manumissio testamento or manumissio

vindicta received citizenship (Finley, 1998). In the former, the letter had to

contain the conventional formula, but in the latter, a high Roman official had to

98
give his consent to the master’s wish and touch the slave with a staff to declare

him free in the presence of the master. This conferred Roman citizenship on the

freedman but not in an absolute sense of it. For instance, they had no access to

the courts and had no franchise. Theoretically, ex-slaves were much the same

as ‘free servants’, but in practice, many continued to endure physical

punishments, sexual abuse, economic exploitation, severe restrictions on

movement, social discrimination, and fragile family relationships.

The sacral manumission was a kind of self-redemption by the slave

mediated through clerical temple personnel. The famous Delphi inscriptions of

the early third century B.C.E. are classic examples of this form of slave

emancipation. The temple offered asylum to flight slaves. Since the slave could

not legally and commercially act on his or her own behalf, the attending priest

(on behalf of Apollo) would normally mediate by negotiating with the slave’s

legitimate owner and slave to work out an agreement after which was engraved

on a stone. Some have described this form as an ‘instrument sale.’ It is because

a fee is paid to the temple by the slave and (or) the patron. Besides that, the slave

never becomes the slave of Apollo but would instead enjoy greater freedom than

he would have enjoyed if manumitted through the informal, formal or state

manumission (Wiedemann, 2005). A sacrally freed slave had access to court

and could own private property without fear that the former master would seize

it.

There was also a manumissio censu which existed until 50 C.E. and was

valid during the eighteenth months within every five years. In this situation, a

slave could become free and had the right of a Roman citizen if he or she could

justify his or her claim to have been born a free citizen and that he or she was

99
supported by his master in his or her desire to be free, and was accepted by the

civil authorities for inscription in the voter’s register. During Paul’s days, the

safest way to grant and receive freedom was either by testament or by a letter

written to the slave, who lived in another place than his owner. This letter had

to have a proper formula meaning that the wording could not be “I wish to be

free” but rather “so and so is free” or “I order that he be free.”

Manumissio vindicta occurred when a high Roman state official gave

his consent to the master’s wish and would have to touch the slave with a staff

and declare him free in the presence of the master. There had to be a contract

with a patron, which required specific payments as well as the listed works of

the slave being manumitted. This contract had to be signed and required a tax

to be paid. The freedman would receive Roman citizenship in this instance but

in a limited sense of it. However, the patron would remain the manumitted

slave’s protector and representative during major litigations but did not possess

the power of the freedman’s life. The manumitted slave would often adopt the

name of his former master in order not to call attention to his former status as a

slave

There were many opportunities for the freedman. Even though some

slipped into far worse conditions, others climbed upward on the social ladder.

Some were knighted and given higher positions in the Roman imperial civil

administration; some were married into noble families while several others

became famous philosophers, poets, teachers or artists. In most cases, the

upward progress of a freed to a level comparable to that of a freeborn citizen

depended mainly on the position of the manumitting patron. In some cases of

manumission rites, there is the signing of a contract (pactum) by which the slave

100
assumed some obligation to live and work on the master’s property like a hired

servant for some time or forever (Bradley, 1998). Skilled slaves could be made

to pay rent or deliver part of their gains to their master and still served their

patron’s order. Thus, for the rest of their lives, the manumitted salve remained

‘freedman’ or freedwoman’ of the patron.

Those who did not find a job in the administration or agricultural work

or other job or the protection of a rich or noble free person shared the fate of the

unfortunate, homeless fugitive slaves. Thus, they became part of the poorest

who were exploited during occasional hiring. Some end up as beggars or thieves

whilst the younger ones sell themselves into prostitution. For some, the liberty

gained turns out to be the freedom to die in utter despair of hunger and disease.

Barth and Blanke (2000) have intimated that “manumission meant

access to liberty fettered so much with many strings and having its wings so

drastically clipped that its effect was highly ambiguous, if not thoroughly

undesirable, unpleasant, and miserable” (p.53). The freedom that emancipation

was meant to offer at best could turn out to be a disguised form of enslavement

in the Roman empire. In fact, enfranchisement could at best turn out to be a

slightly milder form of slavery in the East and the West. The concrete

termination of the ancient forms of institutional slavery was prompted by

economic, political, juridical and ideological changes.

The welfare of slaves in Greco-Roman societies

In every slave society, the most vulnerable to physical abuse and violence are

the slaves. Some domestic slaves suffered rape and other forms of harm;

dissident slaves were chained up in prisons and left to starve or condemned to

the mines and quarries to toil unto death. Questioning of slaves at courts

101
involved torture, flogging, and racking of the body. Nevertheless, despite these

cruelties in Greco-Roman slavery, one cannot overlook the few shades of

humanity towards slaves.

The condition of the slave was not always considered inhumane or

degrading, for slavery formed a regular part of many societies and cultures and

was an integral element of their economic structures. For example, along with

husbands, wives, sons, and daughters, male and female slaves were integral

household members in the Roman world. This can be seen clearly from the

Pauline corpus itself. In Colossians 3:18-4:1 and Ephesians 5:22-6:9, Paul gives

counselling on the appropriate ways household members should conduct

themselves and relate. Manumitted slaves could become businessmen or occupy

high office. They could marry anyone except a senator and, for a time, could

serve in the navy (Meltzer, 1993).

In the elite household, some slaves became confidants and personal

assistants to the master and mistress. Slaves and freedmen were significant in

managing family property. When playing the role of a financial manager or

steward, the slave or freedman assumed a sensitive position of great

responsibility and hence was trusted within the household. Their job was

supported by a cadre of record-keepers, accountants, secretaries, shorthand

note-takers and treasurers. The owners of such trusted slaves (or freedmen)

treated them with much greater deference than the less skilled slaves lower

down the social hierarchy.

Slaves were not segregated from free people in most professions. On the

contrary, they were integrated into all levels of the ancient economy. Unlike

American slavery, where slave illiteracy was by law, slaves in the Greco-Roman

102
empire received training and served as engineers, artisans, professional poets,

physicians, shopkeepers, architects, artists, prophets, philosophers, teachers,

and financial secretaries (Bradley, 1998). In addition, most urban slaves

accumulated and administered peculium in assets like money, tools, land, goods,

and even slaves. While the peculium technically belonged to the master, it often

offered a means of bargaining for manumission.

Despite this opportunity for high status or manumission, many slaves

lived and died under the slavery system that never interrogated the morality of

enslaving fellow humans. Another practice that safeguarded the welfare of

slaves was the architecture of Roman houses. Unlike the American antebellum

South, where slaves lived in separate “slave quarters” outside the master’s

house, ancient slaves lived under the same roof as their owners. Such close

living arrangements heightened familial relations in Roman households.

A slave could, in many cases, enter into business for himself, give a

portion of his earnings to his master or mistress and keep the rest as his

peculium, a ‘little money’ peculiarly his own. With such wages, or by faithful

or exceptional service, or by personal attractiveness, a slave could usually attain

freedom in six years.

Spirituality and Religious Liberty of Slaves

The religious life of Greco-Roman slaves obliged participation in the

routine rituals of the household cult, which centred on the family guardian

spirits that embodied the ancestral spirit of the pater familias. In other words,

most masters integrated their slaves into the family cult or faith practised by the

master. During imperial rites like the Capitalia (i.e., the January rite), the slave

was not exempted. For example, the master of the household hung a woollen

103
ball for his/her slaves but represented the free members with a male or female

doll according to sexes.

Again, the Saturnalia festival celebrated every December provided an

occasion for slaves to assume mastery roles in the household for the period. One

can say that the unrestricted access to cults, gods, or religious rites that slaves

had in the Roman empire helped them to cope with the negative sides of their

situation. The cohesion that emerged among household slaves afforded them

much needed spiritual support in what was commonly a dangerous and

precarious position, where the worth of their lives depended on their owners’

impulses.

Moreover, the domestic religious rites and ceremonies gave occasions

for communal celebrations. Thus, although the manner in which they were

represented made them visibly different from the freeborn and stripped them of

any human or gendered identity, slaves were still considered significant enough

to be included in a family’s offerings in a public cult intimately linked to the

household.

Conclusion

Master-slave relationships constituted the bedrock of the social structure

in the Greco-Roman communities of the 1st century. Unlike the trans-Atlantic

slave trade, slavery in the Greco-Roman context was not based on any prejudice

they had on skin colour. The slaves were denied legal rights to their own self-

autonomy or free will as well as, ownership of their own bodies, intellect and

labour. The legal system rendered slaves as commodities as a means to whatever

masters conceived as pleasurable ends. Benevolence to slaves was not

normative. Charitable treatments of slaves usually served the ultimate purpose

104
of masters because they were counted as part of the paterfamilias assets. A slave

may occupy a salient position in the household of the master, yet such roles did

not exempt them from contemptuous treatment as they could be sold anytime

the master felt so. Nevertheless, most slaves accepted their social position and

roles in society and served their masters with honour.

Freedom or manumission was undoubtedly the dream cherished by most

slaves. Even though a master may manumit a slave out of gratitude or desire to

marry the slave among other reasons, many instances of manumission were

inspired by the master’s desire to be recognised in society as a benefactor or by

his economic interest in accruing a profitable manumission price. As Barclay

(1991) has observed, “the terms of manumission were solely determined by the

slave-owner.” The master often retained some services of the former slave. It

implies that there was no absolute freedom as the freedman was often caught in

a web of continuing obligations.

In Greco-Roman societies, the Stoics are often credited for cultivating a

positive stance toward slaves by arguing for tolerable treatment of slaves.

However, it has been pointed out that Stoic thinkers like Seneca were not first

and foremost interested in the welfare of the slaves, but in the dangerous effects

that slavery could potentially have on masters, for instance, insurrection. In

theory, there were some minimal checks against the cruel treatment of slaves,

yet there is not a single piece of evidence attesting to any punishment on masters

by the Law. Although it reflects a level of concern for the welfare of slaves, the

Justinian Law clearly favoured the paterfamilias as having unrestricted

authority to implicit their own sense of justice in actual situations by flogging

the slave or at least confining him/her to imprisonment.

105
 It is notable that the master-slave relationship in the first century, and

probably beyond, were characterised by fear. Masters resorted to cruel actions,

especially when they perceived that their slaves wronged them. From Seneca’s

essay on anger, we learn that slaves were often disciplined by being flogged or

having their legs broken. Also, torture was recommended as a common way to

discipline slaves, especially when they were being interrogated.

Fugitive slaves posed a serious problem to their masters in terms of loss

of property and services. Though the harsh treatment by the Domini caused

slaves to flee, the masters often punished them with much cruelty when found

or brought back. Extreme violence was employed to deter slaves from running

away. In the event of slave desertion, the master could employ the services of

slave-catchers or publish a ‘wanted’ notice to oblige anyone to help find and

return the slave to his owner. There is a second Century papyrus evidence that

accorded slave-catchers full authority to chastise and imprison the fugitive slave

when found. If masters disciplined common slaves with cruelty, it is reasonable

to argue that there was practically no limit for a master to express anger toward

the servus fugitivus (the runaway slave).

It is within the above-delineated context of the Greco-Roman

community that Philem can best be situated and interpreted. The letter reveals

some insightful notions about the ownership and treatment of slaves. For

instance, there are conventional notions that Philemon legally owns Onesimus

as his slave. However, the slave has resented and ran away and is now being

returned to the owner. Onesimus could realistically only hope for severe

punishment from the master, a certainty no one could deny in that era. Thus,

Paul’s plea to Philemon can best be appreciated against the reconstruction of

106
the historical realities and complexities involved in a master’s dealing with a

runaway slave. How does Paul’s letter mitigate Onesimus’ problem? What

rhetorical techniques does Paul employ to convey his demands or request to

Philemon? How does Paul’s appeal radically subvert Greco-Roman slavery

ideologies and sow the seed for the ultimate transformation of master-slave

relationships? The close reading of the text in the next chapter provides answers

to these questions.

107
 CHAPTER THREE

DISTANCIATION: AN EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF PHILEM

Introduction

The chapter is the distanciation phase of the study, where we set out to analyse

the textual context of the text. The first section of the analysis unearths the

salient elements in the text’s structure and how they gear toward the persuasive

effects of the letter’s appeals. The form of the text yields exegetical benefits for

a fuller comprehension of what Paul did say in the letter.

The second part employs the five-step model of Kennedy (1984) for

rhetorical criticism to provide a complete understanding of the letter’s function,

specifically regarding the argumentation and the rhetorical power of the

argumentation. The reading model entails: (a) isolating the rhetorical unit, (b)

establishing the rhetorical situation, (c) determining the rhetorical genus and the

stasis, (d) analysing the rhetorical structure of the discourse, and (e) evaluating

the persuasiveness of the rhetorical discourse. The analysis aims to expose

Paul’s intentional deployment of language and emotive symbols to induce

Philemon to act, believe, or feel the way the Apostle desired in the rhetorical

situation before him. The chapter ends with some critical labels deducible from

the reading of the text.

Translation of the text

The researcher has carefully read and rendered the Greek text in English to

highlight the rhetorical style, elements, syntax and emotive diction vividly, and

figures of speech that permeate Paul’s intercessory appeal to Philemon.

Moreover, the literal translation is structured into ‘utterance units’ of six

108
putative paragraph items, giving a sense of its apparent proclamatory structure

and style (Wendland, 2008).

1 Παῦλος δέσμιος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ 1 Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus,

καὶ Τιμόθεος ὁ ἀδελφὸς
Φιλήμονι τῷ ἀγαπητῷ καὶ συνεργῷ ἡμῶν
2 καὶ Ἀπφίᾳ τῇ ἀδελφῇ
καὶ Ἀρχίππῳ τῷ συστρατιώτῃ ἡμῶν
καὶ τῇ κατ’ οἶκόν σου ἐκκλησίᾳ,
3 χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη
ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν
καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
and Timothy our brother,
to Philemon our beloved fellow
worker
2 and to Apphia our sister
and to Archippus our fellow
soldier,
and to the church at your house,
3 Grace to you (all) and peace
from God our Father
and the Lord Jesus Christ.

4 Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου πάντοτε 4 I give thanks to my God at all

times
μνείαν σου ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τῶν when I make mention of you in
προσευχῶν μου, my prayers,
5 ἀκούων σου τὴν ἀγάπην καὶ τὴν πίστιν, 5 because I hear that the love and
the faith
ἣν ἔχεις πρὸς τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν which you have toward the Lord
Jesus
καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους, and for all the holy ones,
6 ὅπως ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστεώς σου 6 so that the fellowship of your
faithfulness
ἐνεργὴς γένηται ἐν ἐπιγνώσει παντὸς may become effectual in the
ἀγαθοῦ knowledge of every good
τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν εἰς Χριστόν. that is in us for Christ.
7 χαρὰν γὰρ πολλὴν ἔσχον 7 For I have experienced an
abundant joy
καὶ παράκλησιν ἐπὶ τῇ ἀγάπῃ σου, and comfort from your love,
ὅτι τὰ σπλάγχνα τῶν ἁγίων because the hearts of the holy
ones
ἀναπέπαυται διὰ σοῦ, have been refreshed through you,
ἀδελφέ. [my] brother.

8 Διὸ πολλὴν ἐν Χριστῷ παρρησίαν ἔχων 8 So, although I have much

boldness in Christ
ἐπιτάσσειν σοι τὸ ἀνῆκον to order you to do what is
befitting/required
9 διὰ τὴν ἀγάπην μᾶλλον παρακαλῶ, 9 instead, for the sake of love, I
earnestly appeal you,
τοιοῦτος ὢν ὡς Παῦλος πρεσβύτης I, Paul, being such as an
ambassador,
νυνὶ δὲ καὶ δέσμιος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ· but now, a prisoner too for Christ
Jesus.

109
10 παρακαλῶ σε περὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ τέκνου,
ὃν ἐγέννησα ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς,
Ὀνήσιμον,
11 τόν ποτέ σοι ἄχρηστον
νυνὶ δὲ [καὶ] σοὶ καὶ ἐμοὶ εὔχρηστον,
12 ὃν ἀνέπεμψά σοι, αὐτόν,
τοῦτ’ ἔστιν τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα·
10 I earnestly appeal to you
concerning my child,
whom I have begotten in my
imprisonment,
Onesimus.
11 whom in time past was
unprofitable (useless) you,
but now, at this very moment is
indeed profitable (useful) to you
and to me.
12 whom I have sent back to you,
this one who is my own viscera.

13 ὃν ἐγὼ ἐβουλόμην πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν 13 I would have preferred to keep

κατέχειν,
ἵνα ὑπὲρ σοῦ μοι διακονῇ
ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου,
14 χωρὶς δὲ τῆς σῆς γνώμης
οὐδὲν ἠθέλησα ποιῆσαι,
ἵνα μὴ ὡς κατὰ ἀνάγκην τὸ ἀγαθόν σου ᾖ in order that your goodness
ἀλλὰ κατὰ ἑκούσιον.
him here with me,
so that in your stead, he might
attend on me
in my imprisonment for the
gospel;
14 but without your consent
I resolved/determined to do
nothing
might not be necessitated by
compulsion/force
instead of by your own volition.

15 Τάχα γὰρ διὰ τοῦτο ἐχωρίσθη πρὸς 15 For perhaps this is why he was
ὥραν, parted from you for a short time
(a moment)
ἵνα αἰώνιον αὐτὸν ἀπέχῃς, in order that you might have him
back for all the time (eternally),
16 οὐκέτι ὡς δοῦλον 16 no more as a slave,
ἀλλ’ ὑπὲρ δοῦλον, but more than a slave,
ἀδελφὸν ἀγαπητόν, a beloved brother,
μάλιστα ἐμοί,, especially to me
πόσῳ δὲ μᾶλλον σοὶ but how much greater and even
more certainly to you,
καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ καὶ ἐν κυρίῳ.. both in the flesh and in the Lord

17 εἰ οὖν με ἔχεις κοινωνόν, 17 Consequently, if you

have/hold me dearly as your
fellow-partner,
προσλαβοῦ αὐτὸν ὡς ἐμέ. [then] receive him in the same
way as me.
18 εἰ δέ τι ἠδίκησέν σε 18 Now, if he has acted unjustly
towards you in some way,
ἢ ὀφείλει, or owes you anything,
τοῦτο ἐμοὶ ἐλλόγα. charge that to my account.

110
 19 ἐγὼ Παῦλος ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί,
ἐγὼ ἀποτίσω·
ἵνα μὴ λέγω σοι
ὅτι καὶ σεαυτόν μοι προσοφείλεις..
20 ναὶ ἀδελφέ,
ἐγώ σου ὀναίμην ἐν κυρίῳ·
ἀνάπαυσόν μου τὰ σπλάγχνα ἐν Χριστῷ.
21 Πεποιθὼς τῇ ὑπακοῇ σου ἔγραψά σοι,
εἰδὼς ὅτι καὶ ὑπὲρ ἃ λέγω ποιήσεις.
22 ἅμα δὲ καὶ ἑτοίμαζέ μοι ξενίαν·
ἐλπίζω γὰρ ὅτι διὰ τῶν προσευχῶν ὑμῶν
χαρισθήσομαι ὑμῖν.
19 I Paul write this with my own
hand,
I will repay it –
not to mention that you
owe me even your own self
20 Yes, brother!
may I receive profit (benefit)
from you in the Lord,
Refresh my viscera in Christ!
21 [Having perfect] Confident in
your obedience, I write to you,
knowing that you will do even
more than what I ask.
22 At the same time also, make a
guest room ready for me,
for I hope that through your
earnest prayers
I may be graciously restored to
you (all).

23 Ἀσπάζεταί σε Ἐπαφρᾶς 23 Epaphras sends greetings to

you,
ὁ συναιχμάλωτός μου ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, my fellow prisoner in Christ
Jesus,
24 Μᾶρκος, Ἀρίσταρχος, Δημᾶς, Λουκᾶς, 24 so do Mark, Aristarchus,
Demas, and Luke,
οἱ συνεργοί μου. my fellow workers.
25 Ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ 25 The grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ
μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν. be with the spirit of you all!

Figure 3: A putative division of Philem (Adapted from Wendland, 2008)

Philem as a discrete literary unit

The text of Philem undoubtedly establishes a single complete discourse

enclosed by an epistolary prologue (vv. 1-3) and epilogue (vv. 23-25). No

partition thesis has been advanced regarding Philem, and by all reflections, “it

is a complete communicative act in a self-contained epistolary” (Tsibu, 2021,

p. 47). Verses 1-3 form an inclusio with verses 23-25 with the reiteration of vital

descriptive terms such as ‘prisoner’ (v. 1, 23), ‘fellow-worker’ (v. 1, 2, 24) and

‘grace’ (v. 3, 25). There is a compelling linguistic and semantic consistency in

the text. Tsibu (2021) remarks,

111
 statements, phrases or words in one section of the letter either
anticipated or formed the basis for appeals made in other sections of
the letter. These elements serve as a common thread weaving the
significant sections of the discourse to give it a holistic outlook to
the audience. (p. 47).

The letter’s rhetoric could be best understood when the sections, paragraphs,

phrases, verses or punctuations are interpreted as integrally connected to

another. For this reason, this exegesis considers Philem in its totality as a single

rhetorical piece.

The rhetorical situation of Philem

Paul’s epistles are situational materials prompted by certain distressing matters

and delivered to an audience who were immediately affected by the situation.

Philem is, therefore an occasional letter written in response to exigency. The

letter’s historical situatedness informs the content.

The situation appears to have been this: Paul, currently in prison in

(probably) Ephesus, has fallen in with a fugitive slave named Onesimus and

catechised him. The slave is being returned to his master, Philemon,

accompanied by the present letter, thus stating that Paul has found the slave

useful; he desires to use him in his gospel ministry but will not assume to retain

him apart from Philemon’s own free consent. However, Philemon should

receive Onesimus back as a “brother” (vv. 16-17) and prepare Paul a guest room

if he should soon arrive (v. 22). Except for the fact that Paul states, quite

ambiguously, his confidence that Philemon will do “more” than he asks (v. 21),

he makes no further appeal overt, not liberation from slavery.

There is little consensus among scholars about the exact details of the

situation summarised above. Part of the difficulty is the letter’s ambiguous

silence on how Paul and Onesimus met in the same prison cell. Was Onesimus

112
sent by the Christian community at Philemon’s house to attend on Apostle (just

like the Philippians sent off Epaphroditus)? Or was Onesimus a runaway slave

who got apprehended and thrown into the cell Paul was confined in? Or did

Onesimus leave the master’s house with the deliberate intention of going to

search for Paul to mediate on his behalf? We proceed with the conjecture that

Onesimus and Paul’s encounter in the prison cell was orchestrated by divine

will since Onesimus, who was on the run, most probably neither set out to go

and look for Paul for anything nor was sent as an emissary to Paul from the

Church at Philemon’s house.

The exigence of this letter is related to the harsh treatment and

punishment which might have been awaiting Onesimus in the house of

Philemon. This exigence is partly prompted by Onesimus’ unlawful act of

running away from his master and thus giving his master full legal right to

pronounce any imaginable punishment(s) to deter him and the other slaves from

doing the same. In the context of Greco-Roman honour and shame ideology, the

act of Onesimus constitutes shame to the master, and so Philemon would do

everything to maintain his full authority over the slave to shield his honour.

The other side of the exigence is that the slave, while on the run,

encountered Paul (in the same prison cell) and got catechised by the same

teachings that his master embraced to become a Christian. Thus, both Onesimus,

Philemon, and Paul – the slave, the master and their apostle – are common

fellows in the Christian partnership. Again, this relates to the exigence because

the now-Christian slave, Onesimus, faces a potentially dangerous situation that

might result in maiming or branding or even condemnation to the mines as a

possible treatment from his master, the Christian fellow-worker Philemon.

113
Besides, Paul has discovered that Onesimus—by virtue of being a human

being— is a truly useful creature who must be accorded all dignity and humane

treatment despite his (mis)deeds.

The exigence is heightened by the fact that any mistreatment or sheer

lack of clemency and love would discredit the values of the Christian

community in which Philemon is actively involved. Also, Paul has developed

an intimate concern for Onesimus’s dignity as a human being to the extent that

he refers to him as ‘my own viscera.’ Moreover, he wants Philemon to

demonstrate love towards Onesimus as if he (i.e., Onesimus) were Paul.

Paul’s chief audience is Philemon, the paterfamilias and legal owner of

Onesimus and, at the same time, a key figure in the Christian community that

gathers in his house. He reserves absolute power or authority to bring the

favourable modification communicated by the discourse of the letter. But,

again, the co-hearers—who were gathered at Philemon’s house—put some

rhetorical pressure on Philemon to change or modify the exigence.

The major constraint Paul brings to bear in Philem is demanding

Philemon to extend his good deeds to the returned slave. The tradition of

receiving an apostle or his agent with great hospitality was cherished, and so to

deny Onesimus—who embodies the apostle—such special treatment is to

neglect such a Christian duty. By expressing the belief that Onesimus’s

separation was an ‘act of God,’ Paul tackles any resentment Philemon might be

having. Since he perceives that there is a financial or economic value at stake

and that it may cause Philemon to resent to comply with the appeal, Paul pledges

to offer financial restitution in an effort to mitigate this side of the constraints.

Again, Paul’s confidence formula and trustworthy character highlighted

114
throughout the discourse are valuable resources that mitigate those factors that

may constitute additional constraints about the situation before him.

The rhetorical species and stasis of Philem

The form of rhetoric a rhetor chooses for a given discourse has implications for

interpreting the rhetor’s message. Therefore, the determining species or type

helps to discover the unique emphases of the piece and the author’s objectives.

Aristotle, in his theory of rhetoric, discourses into three categories: judicial,

deliberative and epideictic rhetoric. However, Kennedy (1984) avers that a

discourse typically has one overriding rhetorical genre, which manifests the

author’s principal intent in writing or speaking.

Of the three classical genres, Philem is judged to be fundamentally a

deliberative discourse with minor judicial and epideictic nuances. The discourse

reveals four characteristics of deliberative argumentation as identified by

Mitchell (1991), although a slight alteration can be found in the letter. First,

there is an emphasis on future time as the theme of deliberation, employing a

set of appeals, argumentative proofs from exemplars, and suitable subjects for

deliberation. There is a future-directed language in the discourse. Verse 21 of

the letter indicates that Paul was expecting something to happen in the future.

What is more? Paul’s use of the future indicative poiēseis shows his expectation

of Philemon’s future action.

Secondly, the appeal is clearly shown in verse 9, which reads, “instead,

I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love.” It is clear that agapēn (i.e., love)

forms the roots of Paul’s appeal. Thirdly, concerning the proof of examples, the

discourse exhorts Philemon to imitate the paradigm that Paul implicitly

intimates in verse 14: “but without your consent, I preferred to do nothing so

115
that the good you do might not be compulsion but comes from free will.” Paul

specifically emphasizes the importance of “free will and not compulsion”

because he is addressing the coercive and manipulating slave-master

relationship. In this sense, the verse conveys, by demonstration, a

counterexample for Philemon.

Again, as noted by Church (1978), the argumentation of Philem is

underlined by the deliberative motives for advantageous action (utilitas) and

honour (honestas). Philemon is being persuaded to recognise the advantages of

showing generosity to Onesimus and handling him with respectability. Church

(1978) explicates

in deliberative rhetoric, “the key is to demonstrate love or

friendship, and to induce sympathy or goodwill, in order to dispose
the hearer favourably to the merits of one’s case” (p. 97).

Nonetheless, the exordium in Philem (vv. 4-7) is nuanced with epideictic

rhetoric, which extols Philemon’s adherence to the honourable value of

generosity he already holds. The praises showered on Philemon anticipate a

future duty because Paul prays that “Philemon’s faith may continue to become

effective in the promotion of all the good that is ours in Christ.” In another

sense, the rhetor appears to be pleading for the defence of Onesimus before the

master, thus giving the discourse a forensic outlook. It is as if the slave stands

accused of fleeing from legal bondage, with no justifiable explanation or power

to defend himself. In this scenario, Paul, whom the slave miraculously

encountered, comes in here to intercede for him.

The rhetor pleads that secular justice should be transformed by divine

mercy and love. Why? This is because the master, the slave, the attorney, and

the gathered spectators share a common identity in their fellowship in Christ.

116
While the ethics of this religious group discourage slaves from disrespecting

their masters, it also preaches mercy and love over secular justice when slaves

fault in their domestic obligations. In this forensic sense, the discourse of Philem

could be seen as a defence for a runaway slave in the legal system of slavery.

Philem is, therefore, an excellent example of how the three genres of rhetoric

rely upon one another and that epideictic and deliberative are akin in that the

virtue which epideictic praises, deliberative advises.

As a characteristic of deliberative, the stasis or focal points of the

discourse of Philem is one of quality. That is, it concerns the essential quality

of the controversial social issue of slavery. Paul takes a master-slave

relationship as a de facto social reality. Also, the issue is not about the

conceptual definition of what constitutes slavery. The cause of Paul’s worry

here, however, was the point around which arguments are to be settled. The

driving question probably was: what advantageous course of action must a

Christian master pursue in events like this?

Simultaneously, the rhetor is both praising and beseeching a line of

action based on its expediency and advantageous nature. Therefore, good

treatment or hospitality should be extended to the slave Onesimus since this is

the most fitting duty required by the Christian love ethic (Tsibu, 2021). As with

the stasis of quality, the rhetor Paul implies that this deed of hospitality is a

necessity that must flow naturally from love instead of compulsion. However,

failure to receive and treat Onesimus properly would be tantamount to refusing

to refresh the viscera of the imprisoned apostle, and it would be an utter

disregard of the commons of relationship (koinonia) existing between Paul and

Philemon, the co-worker (v. 17) and the entire ecclesia.

117
 Paul shifts the controversy from the broader Greco-Roman context to

the specific ecclesial context. Relationships in the broader Greco-Roman world

were hierarchical, with slaves at the bottom. Again, Roman law grants masters

the full right to dominate and rule over their slaves (Glancy, 2006). It was

considered normal for masters to use their slaves as living tools and exploit their

labour to expand their socio-economic and political statuses. Such an

entrenched ideology was obviously a major hindrance to Paul in this matter.

However, he must find an expedient way to transform the colonial mentality

behind master-slave relations in the lives of the Christians. Consequently, he

invents a discourse to subvert existing ideologies to bring a radical change. He

draws on the Christian ideology of love in order to persuade Philemon to handle

the returned slave on the basis of Christian love instead of the selfish and

imperfect economic system of the world.

In brief, it is arguably evident that Philem conforms to the structure of

deliberative rhetoric and can be identified with many of its rhetorical elements.

This shows that “Paul is purposefully persuading or moving Philemon, the

prime addressee, and his household church to do something new – to make a

difference” (Tsibu, 2021, p. 48). It is also clear that the new activity he targets

is related to handling complicated aspects of human relationships in the

domestic oikos, and his argument is based on love and koinonia.

Analysis of the Structure of Philem

Since Philem is an epistle by genre, it is appropriate to clarify the epistolary

nature before proceeding to examine the rhetorical structure discernible in the

text.

118
The epistolary structure of the text

Philem conforms to a typical Hellenistic letter with the conventional tripartite

structure. However (as we will shortly see), Paul modified the conventional

structure in all his letters to match his chosen communicative goals on a

particular occasion. Interpreters are divided where the body section ends, and

the concluding section begins. Bible translations such as NRSV take verse 21

as the end of Paul’s appeal for Onesimus, but the NEB extends the appeal to

verse 22. Fitzmyer (2000) and Wilson (2014), for instance, argue for verses 21-

25 as a plausible conclusion of Philem. They contend that verse 21 looks like

the appropriate point for the beginning of the conclusion because there is no

linking particle in verse 21 that links it with what precedes it (i.e., v. 20). This

is taken as a break and a fresh start, with the egrapsa also evidencing the

opening of the final autograph section. However, the autograph of verse 21 and

the request for a “guest room” to be made ready for his eminent visit (v. 22)

should not be interpreted in isolation from the earlier appeals Paul has advanced.

It adds more urgency to move Philemon to grant the focal request for Onesimus.

Hence, I consider verses 21 and 22 as part of the body of the letter with only

verses 23-25 as the postscript (Dunn, 1996; Lohse, 1971; Jeal, 2015; McKnight,

2017). Thus, the epistolary structure of Philem could be summarised as this:

I. The opening section (vv. 1-7)

• Prescript (vv. 1-3)

• Thanksgiving and prayer (vv. 4-7)

II. The body section (vv. 8-22)

III. The concluding section (vv. 23-25)

• Postscript (vv. 23-24)

119
 • Benediction (v. 25)

This epistolary structure fits the putative paragraphing adapted from Wendland

(2009). It gives a glimpse of the oral performance or delivery of the letter as a

written speech. The opening section (vv. 1-7) establishes or enhances personal

correspondence with the addressee(s) through an implicit persuasive intent. It

also specifies the kind of relationship between Paul and the audience.

Moreover, the prescript draws lines around the conversation being

carried on by the letter. Paul uses the opening section to place himself and his

hearers into a unique and trustworthy relationship which serves to further the

rhetorical purpose of the letter. One notices a smooth transition from the

opening section to the body section (vv. 8-22), where Paul develops the thesis

alluded to earlier. Finally, he ‘signs out’ with an adapted closing salutation (vv.

23-24) and a benediction (v. 25). What rhetorical structure could be discerned

from the above epistolary of Philem? The next sub-section establishes the

rhetorical structure upon which the text of Philem would be analysed to

highlight their persuasive functions.

Rhetorical structure of Philem

The basic structure of oratory consists of an exordium, followed by the main

body or arguments, technically referred to as ‘the proof,’ and the concluding

remarks asserted in the epilogue or peroration. Church (1978) labelled Paul’s

use of rhetoric in Philem with the following structure: Introduction (vv. 1-3),

Exordium (vv. 4-7), Proof (vv. 8-16), Peroration (vv. 17-22), and concluding

greetings (vv. 23-25). However, a case could be made for modifying Church’s

structure to include, insinuatio, propositio, and probatio.

120
 A careful look at the text reveals that verses 8-9 are insinuatio, after the

exordium in verses 4-7. Considering the rhetorically delicate nature of the

exigency of the speech, Paul is seen applying the indirect rhetorical method

known as an insinuation. He does not mention the delicate problem immediately

while he is trying to establish further rapport with Philemon so that he can den

make a difficult request in the propositio. In other words, it sets the stage for

the propositio (Lausberg, 1998). It stipulates the concerns for which the

exordium has striven to acquire (i.e., Philemon’s attention, receptivity and

goodwill).

Verse 10 functions as the propositio, where Paul not only clarifies what

is at issue but also, lays the main statement about the subject of the appeal.

Verses 11 through 16 constitute the proof or probatio of the letter. It is the part

of the speech where the rhetorician put forth arguments to illustrate why a

course of action is better, more just or more praiseworthy than another. Finally,

verses 17-22 is the peroratio section of Paul’s plea. The table summarises the

structure of the text of Philem.

Epistolary structure Rhetorical structure

I. The opening section (vv. 1-7) * Epistolary Introduction (vv. 1-3)

• Prescript (vv. 1-3)
I. Exordium (vv. 4-7)
• Thanksgiving (vv. 4-7)

II. The body section (vv. 8-22) II. Proof (vv. 8-16)
• Body-opening (vv. 8-10) a) Insinuatio (vv. 8-9)
• Body-middle (vv. 11-16) b) Propositio (v. 10)
• Body-ending (vv. 17-22) c) Probatio (vv. 11-16)

121
 III. Peroratio (vv. 17-22)

III. The concluding section (vv. 23-25)

* Epistolary conclusion (vv. 23-25)
• Postscript (vv. 23-24)
• Benediction (v. 25)

These two structures of Philem intersect in significant respects. Under the

rhetorical structure section, the “Introduction” and “Final Greetings” are not

part of a traditional rhetorical structure, but one must not forget that Philem is

basically an epistle and not an oral speech. Nonetheless, the adjectives and

figures referenced in the greeting sections have rhetorical value in the overall

assessment of the discourse. From the table, verses 4-7, which is the epistolary

proem or thanksgiving, correlate with exordium from the perspective of

rhetorical study. The remaining rhetorical elements of Philem’s discourse

(insinuatio, propositio, probatio and peroratio) are located in the letter-body

(vv. 8-22).

Epistolary introduction (vv. 1-3)

Philem begins with an expanded customary three-part prescript of classical

letters (i.e., A = sender; B = Addressee[s] and C = chairen). The prescript we

have here not only communicates the typical background of the author(s) and

the addressee(s), but more significantly, “it sets the tone for the rhetorical goal

of the content that will follow” (Tsibu, 2021, p. 47).

In the source section, Paul remarkably labels himself as desmios

Christou Iēsou (prisoner of Christ Jesus) with Timothy beside him (as co-

122
sender) to begin his appeal on a note of sympathy with Onesimus. Why does

Paul put aside the customary title “apostle” and choose no other customary

designation (such as “doulos Christou Iēsou” as in Phil 1:1; Rom 1:1; Tit. 1:1)

than “desmios Christou Iēsou”? to make his present incarceration a vital setting

to his entire plea? The apostle finds himself in a terrible condition, not unsure

of what would happen to him the next moment. Nevertheless, he lifts himself

up to make an emotional appeal on behalf of a traumatised slave. Obviously,

Paul’s reference to his incarceration was undoubtedly to induce an empathy that

would inevitably influence his plea for Onesimus.

The citing of Timothy as a co-sender could suggest that the addressees

know him and have some level of respect for him. By designating him as ‘a

brother,’ Paul alludes to the dependability of Timothy and the indispensable

services he renders to God (Phil 2:19-24). Nevertheless, more significantly, it

implies that Timothy knows about the situation at hand, and he offers his full

support to Paul’s intercessory plea. Fitzmyer (2000, p. 85) conjectures that

“presumably, Timothy had already made the acquaintance of Philemon, perhaps

at the time of the latter’s conversion in Ephesus, and that is why he is mentioned

as a co-sender.” Since Paul was most probably unknown to Philemon in person,

the inclusion of Timothy’s name was probably meant to project him as a co-

supporter of the apostle’s appeal. However, both are not coauthors in the

modern sense of authorship. Though he mentions Timothy as a co-sender, Paul

writes the thanksgiving in the singular, “I give thanks,” indicating that the

thought composition of the letter is solely his.

The numerical order of the persons in the addressee section indicates

that Philemon is the paterfamilias and the primary recipient, with the others as

123
co-addressees. We can see that the persuasive pressure exacted by the mention

of Timothy in the sender suggests that the same motive may lie behind the

mention of Apphia, Archippus and house-church as co-hearers of the letter.

Tsibu (2021) concludes that Paul deliberately expanded the primary recipient’s

name in a subtle but significant way to strengthen the persuasive force of the

appeal that would be made in the body of the letter.

Philemon is designated as tō agapētō (our beloved brother). This is a

concept that indicates mutual love for one another in the Christian community.

This portrayal induces Philemon to consider that he belongs to a community

instituted on shared love. Paul strategically uses the adjective agapētos to

insinuate his appeal in the body section of the letter that Philemon welcomes

Onesimus back in the same agape (love) which sets Christians apart from the

rest of the people in the world.

Archaeological discoveries indicate that Philemon’s name was

relatively common in Phrygia in the first century C. E. From its root (philein,

“love”), the Greek name Philēmōn probably meant kind-heartedness, loving, or

worthy of love. Fitzmyer (2000) narrates a Greek myth to throw further light

on the name. In this legend, Zeus and Hermes concealed their identities and

incarnated on earth to assess the virtue of human beings, but all denied them

hospitality, but only a country-dweller couple, Philemon and Baucis, welcomed

them. Astounded by this hospitable care, the gods disclosed their real identity

and instructed Philemon and Baucis to climb a mountain to save themselves

from impending flooding that would annihilate the land. Afterwards, Philemon

and Baucis were transformed into a priest and priestess of the gods.

124
 Fitzmyer (2000) insightfully suggests that Paul was plausibly punning

the meaning of ‘Philemon’ with the adjective agapēthos. In this letter, Philemon

may be conceived as a relatively wealthy figure, “owner of a house large enough

to host a house church and to have, in addition, at least one guest room available

for a visitor” (Barth & Blanke, 2000, p. 137). He bears the honour as a great

patron of the “saints.” Philemon is also portrayed as a committed and zealous

Christian in his benevolent activities. Paul’s description of Philemon as tō

agapētō projects him as a Christian figure who has lived true to his name by

displaying great generosity to friends, family, and the saints. The situation of

Onesimus, a household slave of Philemon, presented an occasion for Paul to

raise the paterfamilias’ consciousness and sensitivity to treat the vulnerable or

the marginalised with dignity without resorting to the mundane social

constructions at the time.

Secondly, Philemon is also described as sunergō ēmōn (our fellow

worker) like Timothy (Romans 16:21; 1Thessalonians. 3:2), Prisca and Aquila

(Rom. 16:3), Titus (2Cor. 1:19, 1Thess. 3:2), Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 4:2-

3); Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25), Aristarchus, Mark, Demas and Luke (Philem 24),

and Jesus Justus (Col. 4:11) who personally and actively participated in Paul’s

missionary activity in various places. One could say that the title ‘fellow-

worker’ was a dignified title seldom used for extraordinary personalities who

have contributed immensely towards the advancement of the gospel and growth

of the Christian brotherhood. It suggests that Philemon might have participated

(at least, in terms of sponsorship) in getting the gospel rooted in the region he

was dwelling. Dunn (1996) entertains the possibility that Philemon used his

125
means as a successful businessman to convert several people into the faith and

also lead the church which met in his house.

Synergos evokes the common bond between Paul and Philemon, which

would be invoked more directly at the climax of the appeal. The designations

bestowed on Philemon by inference pull him extremely into the rhetorical circle

Paul envisioned. Sooner or later, Philemon would be set up in a situation that

would require him to behave as ‘a beloved co-worker.’ Tsibu (2021) notes,

Philemon would be compelled to perform a crucially arduous but

fitting activity that would revitalise the viscera of a person whose
name he would not want to hear yet whose viscera has become
interconnected with that of brother Paul, the imprisoned apostle of
Christ (p. 50).

Apphia is distinguished as adelphē (a sister), but many readers such as

Chrysostom, Lightfoot, Gnilka, Lohse, and Carson have interpreted that she was

the wife of Philemon (Fitzmyer, 2000) However, there is no evidence for the

precise relationship of these addressees. If she was the ‘wife’ of Philemon or

Archippus, as Knox (1963) contends, her roles as materfamilias would include

the daily management of the household slaves. There is also an alternative

suggestion that she was Philemon’s biological sister. However, had Paul meant

genetic sister, he would have removed any ambiguity by writing “tē adelpē sou”

(Wilson, 2014). The more plausible status of Apphia is that of a leader in the

house-church like Euodia and Syntyche in the Thessalonian house-church.

From an ancient inscription, the name Apphia is a Phrygian name, an indication

that she was a native of Colossae.

Archippus bears an envious title, systratiōtēs tō hēmōn (our fellow-

soldier). In the whole NT, it is only Archippus and Epaphroditus who were

described with this designation. The term evokes the virtue of loyalty, discipline

126
and courage in the face of opponents. From Paul’s usage of the verb form

systreusthai (serve as a soldier) in 2Corinthians 10:3, the term is employed in a

metaphorical way to describe the laborious missionary struggle of Christians.

Fitzmyer (2000) has conjected that biologically Archippus was the son of

Apphia and Philemon.

In an entirely different way, Knox (1963) and Winter (1987) contend

that he was the direct recipient of the letter. It is also posited that he was the

founder and first bishop of the church in Colossae (Martin, 1991). None of these

views is backed by any evidence from the text before us. I agree with McKnight

(2017) that these speculations are inaccurate because it is implausible that Paul

would address a letter to a single household of husband, wife, and son. We

should probably consider that these individuals were different leaders in the

Church at Colossae from different households. The inclusion of the co-hearers

makes Philem a public personal letter instead of a private personal letter. The

mentioning of co-hearers implies that the letter was meant to be read aloud in

their presence. This public performance of the letter heightened the letter’s

rhetorical goal. It makes the motive of the letter transcends private

correspondence.

Paul deliberately makes his appeal a public matter by including these

local leaders in the recipient formula, thus giving the letter an added persuasive

urge. Peterson (1985, p. 99) observes that “social pressure on Philemon is

secured most conspicuously by Paul’s addressing his letter not only to Philemon

but also to Apphia, Archippus, and the entire church that meets in Philemon’s

house.” The same point is emphasised in Barth and Blanke’s (2000, p. 19)

commentary that everybody else mentioned in the letter is “charged and enabled

127
to exert some pressure on the slave owner if he would ever prove reluctant in

fulfilling Paul’s expectations.”

Finally, tē kat’ oikou sou ekklēsia is the last segment of the addressee

formula of the letter. The word oikos is ambiguous in this phrase. It could mean

“(according to your) household,” (i.e., the church made up of members of the

household or family of Philemon), or the physical “house,” in which the family

and other Colossian Christians met for liturgical and social services, (i.e., a

house-church). The latter makes much sense because early Christians did not

have separate edifices for worship but rather met regularly in private houses

(Acts 12:12). The inclusion of the church in the recipient formula reveals Paul’s

intention to expect the letter to be performed or delivered aloud in the presence

of the entire church at Philemon’s house. Fitzmyer (2000, p. 81) remarks,

“[T]he letter was not intended to be read silently by those addressed, but to be

read aloud to an assembled group of Christians.” The holy ones at Philemon’s

house should also show concern for the object of Paul’s appeal. The setting

prompts Philemon to consider that the situation Paul is pleading to him about

could tarnish his fine reputation.

The third part of the prescript formulae is the conventional epistolary

greeting, chairien which Paul modifies in all his writings (1Thess 1:1; Gal. 1:3,

Rom. 1:7. Phil. 1:2, etc.) Paul greets the entire body of addressees that they will

have a share in God’s favour and the peace (eirēnē) that is derived from it

(Fitzmyer, 2000). The Greek word charis emphasises God’s unmerited gift of

salvation and life to Philemon and the co-hearers. Similarly, “peace” connotes

the fullness of God’s gracious abundance as expressed in the priestly blessing

in the Old Testament (Num. 6:24-26). Paul’s prayer wish is that God the Father

128
and the Lord Jesus will bestow this gift of blessing upon Philemon and the co-

hearers. By qualifying God as patros humōn (our father), Paul affirms their

common identity in God. In the same vein, Paul stresses the Lordship of Jesus

over all the addressees, including free persons, freedmen and women, slaves

(douloi) and their masters (kyrioi), the earthly ruler and the ruled, etc.

The prescript clearly reveals that Paul modified the epistolary

convention in such a way to foreshadow the explicit and implicit requests of the

letter and also to put considerable pressure on Philemon to acquiesce to Paul’s

requests. The letter comes from an imprisoned apostle of Christ to a beloved

fellow worker of the gospel, Philemon. All the descriptive terms and

personalities mentioned in the prescript heighten the persuasive goals of appeal

to be made later on.

The exordium (vv. 4-7)

The exordium creates empathetic contact with the audience, invents the author’s

character, and conveys a forecast of what is to ensue. It is like the web which

draws the audience into the speech or discourse. Usually, the rhetor “would

introduce the subject at hand and include material that would make the audience

both attentive and receptive to the argument” (Witherington III, 2007, p. 28).

In this way, the exordium functions like an “overture in which each of the

themes to be later heard in different, perhaps more specific context, is given an

anticipatory hearing” (Knox, 1963, p. 15). According to Aristotle (Rhet. 1.2.3),

the effort to appeal to deep-seated emotions such as empathetic love and create

pathos in the hearer is a premeditated move to put the hearer into a particular

receptive frame of mind.

129
 Misericordiam arguments may influence a person to the degree that

strong logical reasoning will not. It exemplifies love and friendship for the

hearer in order to induce benevolence and render him disposed to act as

entreated. Paul, therefore, uses praises to build a trustworthy character and

goodwill between himself and Philemon, the primary addressee. He causes

Philemon to feel exceedingly important and respected. In the ancient Greco-

Roman world, giving and receiving favours were underlined by the virtue of

gratitude. One was expected to always express gratitude by willingly returning

a favour to the person from whom the favour was received. Expressing such an

intentional appreciation was a way of continuing the mutual exchange of

goodwill or favours.

There is a controversial emergency before Paul, which has possibly

alienated the compassion of the main addressee about listening to the address.

At the very least, there is a grave betrayal of trust, a serious infraction of the

law, as well as a contempt for Philemon’s social status. Thus, before Paul

advances his actual plea, he must, from the outset, assuage not only the

aggrieved paterfamilias but also allude to certain key concepts upon which he

would press forward his argumentative plea. This would make Philemon

become attentive, responsive, and sympathetic towards the rhetor and give a

consideration to the rest of the communication.

The professional lector who was delivering the message to the audience

knew when to maintain regular eye contact with Philemon for added emphasis

to the appeal. Tsibu (2021, p. 51) conjectures that “if Paul were to deliver orally

in person in the congregation, he (i.e., Paul) would be looking straight at

Philemon with everyone observing.” By proclaiming that “I always remember

130
you in my prayers,” Paul secures a trustworthy character from the addressee(s).

He intentionally introduces himself as a person who has directly profited from

Philemon’s compassionate deeds. Thus, Paul is hearty in approbation and lavish

in his praise of Philemon.

The present tense verb, eucharistō (I give thanks) used together with the

present tense participle poioumenos (every time I mention you), indicates the

present and ongoing nature of his prayers (Fitzmyer, 2000). The singular “you”

(sou) refers directly to Philemon, even though the letter has been addressed to

others as well.

The causal reason for Paul’s intercessory prayer is because he has

repeatedly received reports about ‘the faith and the love’ of Philemon (v. 5).

Paul expresses a prayerful hope that Philemon’s participation in the faith may

be oriented around the realisation of every good deed that Christ is

accomplishing among the saints. This thoughtfully structured prayer-wish was

to broaden the horizon of Philemon’s understanding to contemplate “every good

thing” in Christ. In Galatians 6:10, Paul imperatively exhorts the Christians: “let

us do good to all people.” Also, in Ephesians 2:10, Paul makes the expression,

“created in Christ Jesus to do good works.”

Paul emphasises his special affectionate joy (chara) and encouragement

(paraklēsis) because of Philemon’s lovely deeds. Philemon’s love and

generosity toward the saints in various forms have produced paraklēsis

(comfort) for Paul. Consequently, the saints’ splanchna (viscera, intestines) are

refreshed (anapauō). The word ‘splanchna’ literally refers to one’s bowels,

innards or entrails where deepest feelings are located. There is no direct word

in English that could be used to translate splanchna. However, NRSV’s usage

131
of “hearts” for splanchna does not bring out the whole meaning and sense of the

Greek word. Actually, splanchna is a more emotive term than the common

kardia (i.e., heart). Philemon is being portrayed as a compassionate figure who

provides the innermost desires of the saints with impressive sensitivity. The

verb anapauō denotes “causing someone to become physically refreshed as the

result of resting from work” (Louw & Nida, 1989). The vocative adelphē

(brother!) is strategically placed at the end of the construction for rhetorical

emphasis and relational warmth (Dunn, 1996).

In sum, verses 4-7 prepare the direct recipient beforehand for an

undisclosed appeal by stimulating him of his generous deeds towards God’s

children. Paul composes admirable tributes for the furtherance of the

intercessory plea by highlighting those traits and virtues of Philemon upon

which its outcome rests. He deliberately introduces the themes of “love”,

“good”, “partnership”, and “brotherhood” in a manner that redounds

Philemon’s praise (Church, 1987). Having incited Philemon’s emotions “to

render him biased in the preferred direction, Paul moves on to communicate the

actual demand of the appeal with both logical and emotive argumentative

proofs” (Tsibu, 2021, p. 51).

The insinuatio (vv. 8-9).

Having eulogised admirations and appreciation to Philemon for his love towards

the saints in the exordium, Paul the rhetor dwells on the same eulogy to put

before Philemon a rhetorical exigency and implores him to display a similar

level of love for which he had been highly praised. In doing so, Paul employs

insnuatio, “an address which, by dissimulation (dissimulatio) and

circumlocution (circumitio), secretly steals into the mind of the hearer” (Cicero,

132
1.17.24). This subtle device lies somewhere in mid-continuum between

transparency and falsehood—and within that range not quite confession, on the

one hand, or denial on the other. In De inventione, Cicero elaborates on how

rhetor may exemplify insinuation in these words:

If the scandalous nature of the case occasions offence, it is necessary to

substitute for the person at whom offence is taken another who is
favoured, or for a thing at which offence is taken, another which is
approved, or a person for a thing or a thing for a person, in order that the
attention of the auditor may be shifted from what he hates to what he
favours. Also, you must conceal your intention of defending the point
which you are expected to defend. After that, when the audience has
now become more tractable, approach the defence little by little and say
that the things which displease your opponents are also displeasing to
you. Next, after pacifying the audience, show that none of these charges
apply to you and assert that you will say nothing about your opponents,
neither this nor that, so as not openly to attack those who are favoured,
and yet, by working imperceptibly, as far as possible to win the goodwill
of the audience away from your opponents. Also, you may offer a
decision or opinion of some authorities in a similar case as worthy of
imitation; then show that in the present case the same question is to be
decided, or one like it or one of greater or less importance (Cicero,
1.17.24).

The use of insnuatio by Paul is strategic since the case to be argued might appear

shocking to Philemon’s sense of justice in relation to the object represented.

According to Tsibu (2021), “the rhetorical crescendo of Paul’s appeal builds up

from statement to statement throughout the rest of the letter.” Paul sets off with

cleverly composed words to underscore his own ethos and Philemon’s empathic

love, using the literary device of tautologous parallelism (Tsibu, 2021). One can

see this in the verses below.

8 So, although in Christ I am bold 9b I, Paul, an ambassador

enough to command you to do 9c and now a prisoner too for
what is proper, Christ Jesus,
9a instead I prefer to appeal to you
out of love

133
The double or tautological parallel rhetoric of Paul is clearly seen when one

observes how he contrasts “I am bold enough to command you” with “I prefer

to appeal to you out of love.” Just next to this, Paul erects another one: “I Paul,

an ambassador” but now “a prisoner for Christ.” Thus, an apostle with a divine

commission of Christ is now begging on the basis of love. As if that is not

enough, the famous ambassador of Christ moves further to plead based on his

imprisonment condition.

With tacit insinuation to his apostolic influence, Paul declares

forcefully, echōn pollen parrēsian (“I could be bold, or I have strong boldness

to order you [Philemon]”) to anēkon (to do what is expected of you, the right

thing). However, immediately after stressing his legitimate authority ‘to

command’ (epitassein), Paul swiftly renounces from giving an authoritative

order to beseeching (parakalō) Philemon on empathy terms.

Stated differently, Paul willingly puts aside his credible authority or

absolute power in Christ (en Christō) and entreats Philemon in ‘the most

excellent way,’ the way of love. He paints a clear-cut parallel between using

‘authority to coerce’ and ‘love to pray’ and paradigmatically moulds his

intercessory plea on the Christian principles of love. Tsibu (2021, p. 51) argues

that “the rhetor’s decision to appeal by terms of love instead of by authority was

a carefully planned rhetorical move because he had already extolled Philemon

for his unparalleled reputation of love and faith in the exordium.” The

inferential article dio (so, therefore or whence) in verse 8 connects the

prospective appeal to what thematic statements made in verses 1-7.

Furthermore, Paul employs the oratorical device of antiphrasis in the

tautologous parallelism formed by verses 9b and 9c to buttress the theme of

134
love. Antiphrasis is a literary technique where the speaker abandons an

obviously strong line of argument. Cicero writes, “I will not plead against you

according to the rigour of the law, I will not press the point which I should

perhaps be able to make good” (De Or. 2.80.325). Therefore, Paul deliberately

renounces his power as both ‘Christ’s ambassador’ and ‘now his prisoner’ to

count on the willing compliance of Philemon to his demand. This is an

additional persuasive tactic for launching a stronger argument to strengthen the

real plea in a more definite sense.

At this stage of performance (i.e., vv. 9b-9c), “the lector plausibly

looked into the eyes of Philemon who likewise stared at the reader and

visualised Paul himself” (McKnight, 2017, p. 80). This visualisation becomes

more intense in verse 9b, which announces: toioutos hōs Paulos nuni presbutēs

nuni de kai desmios Christou Iēsou (“none other than I Paul, an ambassador and

now also as a prisoner of Christ Jesus”). The verse compellingly produces an

image of the present condition of Paul as an older man in his mid-fifties under

bondage in a dungeon and sharing (koinonia) in the weaknesses and humiliation

of Christ. Undoubtedly the highlighted condition of Paul serves to induce

emotions of reverence and compassion. Also, for a persuasive effect, Paul might

have drawn attention to his old age to evoke respect and privileges naturally

accorded to the elderly in antiquity. Again, the reiteration of the verb parakelō,

functions as an appeal to pity. “It pulls the heartstrings of Philemon not once

but twice” (Church, 1978, p. 29).

The propositio (v. 10)

The propositio provides an abridgment of what one is about to speak on or

concisely puts forth a case or premise for examination. It is a statement or a

135
proposition that “sets forth the principal subject, theme or thesis for public view

or discussion.” In oratory, the propositio is immediately followed by proofs or

reasons. After the double-stated appeal through insinuatio, Paul ultimately

presents the subject of the intercessory plea (v. 10). When the modern reader

visualises himself or herself into the house of Philemon, the exact setting where

God’s saints have assembled to hear the letter read aloud, one sees Onesimus

the letter carrier and the lector stand upright with all the influence of Paul. The

man is the subject of Paul’s rhetorical plea.

However, immediately the subject of the appeal’s name is disclosed,

Paul formulates the ground cleverly with an affectionate designation, ‘to emon

teknon es tois desmois mou’ (my child, whom I have begotten in my chains).

The biological concept ‘teknon’ does not signify a physical birth but a

metaphoric relationship after Onesimus’ conversion. Onesimus has been

catechised into the Christian faith through the instrumentality of Paul. The

Greek word ‘Onesimus’1—which means ‘useful’—was a common slave name

in the region of Ephesus.

Even the postponement of the subject’s name till this point is a rhetorical

move. Because Paul knew a simple disclosure of the slave’s name might stir the

master’s annoyance, “he deliberately withheld the name of Onesimus up to this

point after he had fully described the transformations that have taken effect in

the subject’s life” (Tsibu, 2021, p. 52).

1
Similar nomenclatures such as chresimos (useful), karpos (fruitful), and chrestos (good,
profitable) were borne by contemporary slave of Rome. Onesimus was a house slave of
Philemon. However, the concrete role of the slave in that house is unidentified. He could have
been a household manager, a chef, a padedagogus for Philemon’s son, an administrator, a
personal attendant or a sexual slave. Regardless of any crucial function Onesimus was serving
in the household, he still remained pias (a boy), ‘a social death’ with no right to ownership and
could not seek justice or personal adventures.

136
The probatio (vv. 11-16)

The probatio is the part of a speech or written composition that sets out the

arguments in support of a thesis and refutes the opponent's claims. From verses

11-16, Paul offers propositions to corroborate his argument and provides

reasons, details, illustrations, and examples in support of the main theme of the

plea. In the first place, Paul creates a pun on the name ‘Onesimus’ to enhance

his petition immediately after he announced the name2. This punning

establishes the motive of utility (utilitas) in the fundamental worth or utility of

every human person. It thus functions to revolutionise Philemon’s perception of

the slave. As a result, Paul is stimulating Philemon’s consciousness to cause

him to evaluate his slave with a Christian worldview.

The juxtaposition of achrēston and euchrēston in a close proximity

suggests that Paul was employing the technique of paranomasia – a figure of

speech formed when the same word stem reappears in close propinquity. Again,

the sequence of the words Onēsimon, achrēston and euchrēston with the same

accusative case and similar terminations constitute what is called homoeoptoton

(v. 10). Some readers argue that the punning is suggesting that Onesimus

became ‘useless’ either by running away or having caused his master some

monetary loss.

Lohse (1971) and Winter (1987) claim that Onesimus was ‘useless’ in

the otherworldly sense since he was a non-Christian but now is “useful”

(spiritually) for he has undergone a transformation and has become born-again

in Christ. Glancy (2006) also conjectures that “useless” and “useful,” like

2 Onēsimon, who formerly was achrēston (useless) to you, but now has become euchrēston
(useful) indeed, to you and me.

137
 “disposable,” are sets of utility concepts in the world of slaveholders. Similarly,

Marchal (2011, p. 92) contends that the punning characterisation of Onesimus

sheds light on his sexual utility (chrēsis) as previously “‘useless’ or ‘not-useful’

but currently ‘good-for-use,’ ‘well-used,’ or even ‘easy-to-use.’” Nevertheless,

Tsibu (2021) asserts that

the wider setting of the utility binary of achēston/euchēston in the

text does not indicate that Paul is inferring the view that ‘Onesimus
is ‘good-for-use’ as a slave, and thus ‘easy-to-use’ sexually, for
Philemon, for the community of holy ones, and also even for Paul
himself (p. 52).

The punning echoes the deep-rooted stereotypical notion about (Phrygian)

slaves. This is underscored by the popular Roman proverbial saying, “a useless

Phrygian slave becomes better by whipping.” Paul’s portrayal of the slave is not

due to any alleged theft case or economic loss. Instead, Paul says something

like, “I have experienced Onesimus as a useful person, and so I suppose you (in

Christ) will see him as well.” Thus, Paul would like Philemon to understand that

Onesimus’ intrinsic worth surpasses the secular conception which labels slaves

as paradoxically unprofitable creatures. Onesimus is an intrinsically useful

creature.

In verses 12-14, Paul provides another reason using the motive of

honour (honestas). He sets an ingenious example of the virtue of honour, and

based on it, entreats Philemon to imitate it faithfully and willingly.

12 … I have sent back to you, this one
who is my very own heart.
13 1 would have preferred to keep him
here with me, so that he might serve me
on your behalf during my imprisonment
for the gospel;
14 but without your consent, I preferred
to do nothing in order that the good you
do might not be by compulsion but come
of your own free will

138
 In verse 12, Paul acknowledges the legality of slavery (and right of

ownership) and cooperates with civil authorities in sending back Onesimus to

the lawful owner. However, uncertain about how Philemon the master would

treat the slave, Paul had to escort the slave with this intercessory letter so that it

evokes gracious handling. The epistle gives Philemon an occasion to model

himself on the good deed illustrated by Paul.

Onesimus has turned out to be Paul’s child in incarceration. Because of

his partnership with an apostle, Philemon is being implored to accept Onesimus

as Paul’s own innermost self, ‘entrails’ or ‘viscera.’ Paul not only engenders

empathetic moods in Philemon but more significantly, he recommends that he

chooses the most expedient choice in the deliberative equivalence. Koester

(1982) observes, “it is as if Paul, embodied in the runaway slave, came to

Philemon in person with his request to be treated kindly” (p. 135). Quintilian

recommends that sometimes the advocate must assume close intimacy with his

client to arrest the heart and emotions of the audience (Quintilian. 6.1.24-5).

Paul thus connects himself to Onesimus by using the evocative term splanchna,

which is the equivalent graphic vocabulary used to designate Philemon’s

kindness and refreshment to the saints in verse 7.

Paul purposefully talks of himself out of a dear relationship with both

the slave and his master. In verse 13, Paul articulates a dear thought or desire

(eboulomēn) of keeping (kaechein) Onesimus for useful service in the gospel.

The word diakoeō comprises a range of activities extending from domestic

chores (Mk. 22:31; Acts 6: 6-11; 1Cor. 16:15) to gospel and church service (Col.

1:7; 4:7; 2Cor. 11:23; 1Tim. 3:8, 12). There is an implied demand requesting

Philemon to send Onesimus back as the master’s representative. However, in

139
verse 14, Paul kindly recognises the lawful dominion of masters over their

slaves and instead pleads to the voluntary will or consent (gnōmē) of Philemon.

Essentially, he does not want Philemon’s decision or choice to be forced or

coerced (anankē); instead, he wants Philemon’s decision to be hekousion

(voluntary).

Some interpreters have wondered why Paul did not go further to seek

the total manumission of Onesimus. Fitzmyer (2000, p. 112) rightly surmises,

“the good that humans do must come from them spontaneously and of their own

free will and not because of any necessity or constraint. That is the essence of

being human.” Paul keeps Philemon from saying “No” to any of the statements

of appeal. He had learnt the value of conditioning a person in the affirmative

direction. Hence, it sets the psychological process of moving Philemon in the

affirmative direction. Paul honestly tries to see things from Philemon’s point of

view. Wanting to win Philemon to his side of thinking, Paul tried to be very

sympathetic to Philemon’s desires and ideas – sympathy is something that the

human species crave universally.

Verses 15-16 culminate the probatio with an argumentative proof from

the divine. Over and above earlier reasons advanced, Paul now calls on

Philemon to fathom the entire event from the supernational viewpoint. This is

the clear intention behind Paul’s usage of the passive voice of echōristhē. The

active verb form means “to divide or separate” and the passive, “to separate

more generally to be taken away or depart” (Act 1:4; 18:1). Paul diplomatically

describes the parting of Onesimus with a theological passive to suggest that the

initiative belonged to God. In other words, the “separation” was an event that

happened to Onesimus rather than something he proactively initiated.

140
According to McKnight (2017, p. 94), it “explains the act, not from its outset,

iteration, travel, or result but as a whole.” The persuasive intent of imagining

Onesimus’ flight as part of God’s divine plan was to suggest that any rejection

of Paul’s request would be tantamount to not a mere rejection of the human Paul

but a rejection of the divine God and his all-knowing purpose.

Onesimus and Philemon have been mystically parted pros horan (for an

hour/ a while), but the newfound relationship will endure infinitely. The

adjective, ainōnion (forever or eternally), stands in stark contrast to the temporal

phrase pros hōran (for an hour or a while). Different from suggesting that the

slave has come back for everlasting servitude, Paul is referring to their shared

relationship as Christian brothers, who are connected everlastingly; not even

death could put them apart (Fitzmyer, 2000). Paul constructs an intercessory

appeal that raises the slave from the ground to Philemon’s dining table. In

essence, Philemon would welcome Onesimus back unreservedly and ad

infinitum.

Verse 16 brings the plea to a climax. While the word doulos appears

only here, it should not be read without the antecedent particle, hōs (as), which

is introduced as subjective reality and not just an objective portrayal. The

phrase, “as a slave” contrasts “more than a slave, as a beloved brother” through

the usage of the conjunction “alla” (but). Philemon is no longer (ouketi) to

consider Onesimus as though he is only a slave. Instead, he should regard him

as a beloved brother, irrespective of whether or not Onesimus would remain his

slave forever. This “no longer” resonances with John 15:15, “I no longer call

you doulous … I have called you friends.” Paul employs the “no longer”

141
statement in Romans 14:15 to exhort Christians to show affectionate

consideration towards one another.

Actually, Onesimus’s present social status is that of a domestic slave.

However, Paul attempts to get Philemon to appreciate much more about

Onesimus beyond the socio-cultural status of slavery. He persuades the

Christian master to “have him back”(apechien) “no longer as a slave but more

than a slave, as a beloved brother” (hōs doulon alla huper doulon, adephon

agapēton). The phrase, en sarki kai en kuriō (in the flesh and the Lord) in verse

16b, in turn, both broadens and qualifies the reality of the transformed

relationship that Paul is requesting. This reality comprises all spheres of human

existence.

There are differing views on Philemon’s decision because of the

vagueness of the request in verse 16. Lohse (1971), Nordling (1991), as cited in

McKnight (2017), opines that Philemon must take back Onesimus, reinstate him

to the household and permit him to do his job in a safe and healthy environment.

However, Koester (1982), Lohmeyer (1964) and Fitzmyer (2000) understand

verse 16 as a clue of Paul’s desire for Onesimus to be manumitted immediately

and be returned back to Paul to serve in the Christian evangelism mission.

The second view is extremely implausible in the immediate socio-

cultural context of the letter. An instant liberation of a fugitivus from slavery

would have injured Philemon’s honour and reputation, considering that the

master-slave relationship was a key social component of the Greco-Roman

world. Thus, it sounds anachronistic for one to read verse 16 as Paul’s

expectation for the immediate abolition of the master-slave relationship. Neither

the historic slave revolts nor the stoic philosophy envisioned the end of master-

142
slave relationships. Richard Horsely (1997, p. 72) rightly observes, “slavery

was such an essential part of the socio-economic and religiopolitical structures

of the empire in such a complex manner that it was impossible to imagine a

society without master-slave relationships.” Paul tackled pragmatics problems

in the master-slave relations instead of a total manumission of slaves. He

operated within the constraints of the situation so that he would appear

liberating and culturally sensitive concurrently.

Nonetheless, there is no clause in the letter forbidding Philemon from

releasing Onesimus from enslavement. If the letter’s appeal is not primarily

meant for the immediate manumission of Onesimus, then how should Philemon

behave as a Christian towards his fugitivus servus, who has also become a

Christian? Paul’s vague request is that Philemon should make some adjustments

for Onesimus in the household. As a Christian, Philemon should let the

Christian virtue of tenderness, mercy, love, justice, sacrifice, and respect affect

every secular and socio-economic relationship with Onesimus.

In the same verse (i.e., v. 16), Paul climaxes the relationship between

Onesimus and Philemon with the plea that Philemon should demonstrate to

Onesimus a degree of love that surpasses his (i.e., Paul’s) own. The word

employed here, malista is a superlative form of mallon. It means “a very high

point on a scale of extent, exceptionally, very much, particularly, and

immensely.” Moule (1948) remarks that malista “must necessarily be used in

an elative sense because the succeeding posō de mallon precludes being literally

a superlative” (p. 148).

The proximity of en sarki and en kyriō is distinctive to Paul’s plea in

Philem, although the two parts appear individually in other Pauline letters. The

143
word sarki denotes “the flesh which covers the bones of a body or the body

itself or a person of flesh and blood.” Thus, in a transference sense, it refers to

human nature with its imperfections. The use of en sarki3 for Onesimus

underscores the common human nature he shares with both Paul and Philemon

while en kuriō depicts his new status in Christ. Paul declares this absolute aspect

of Onesimus' existence. Although Onesimus’ former and legal status remains,

he is transformed by a life of spiritual dedication and obligation to the Lord (en

kyriō).

In both realms of material relationship (en sarki) and Christian

relationship (en kyriō), Onesimus is a valuable being, esteemed by Paul. Earlier

in the salutation formulae, Paul has designated Philemon as agapēton; now, he

requests Philemon to esteem Onesimus as adephon agapēton (i.e., a beloved

brother). This is because the slave has become one of the saints. After all, he

has accepted the gospel of Christ. Just like Philemon himself and the gathered

audience, Onesimus is an adopted child of God (Gal. 4:5). Initiated through the

baptismal rite, Onesimus must be received at the Lord’s table. Paul has set

before Philemon the advantages or social capital he would accumulate if he

(Philemon) receives Onesimus back favourably. Equally, Paul would indicate

to him shortly the losses or disadvantages Philemon would suffer if he persists

in penalising Onesimus or refuses to welcome him with compassion.

While Paul has not made his appeal overtly clear, he has communicated

his expectations poignantly in the portrayal of Onesimus. This builds up a

3
Callahan infers from the phrase, ‘in the flesh,’ that Philemon and Onesimus are blood
brothers. However, this reading is less credible in view of the plain use of ‘doulos’ to label
Onesimus in the same verse.

144
suspenseful climax for the audience. What does Paul want Philemon to do? In

the peroratio section, Paul authoritatively compels Philemon to embark on

advantageous activities.

The peroratio (vv. 17-22)

The peroratio serves as a reiteration of the probatio. It “draws together

the entire argument and includes material designed to compel the audience to

think or act in a way consonant with the central argument” (Winter, 1987, p. 45)

Quintilian affirms, “it is the peroration, if anywhere, that we must let loose the

whole torrent of our eloquence” (Inst. Or. 6.1.52). Tsibu (2021, p. 54) also

observes that this is the section where “Paul recapitulates his appeal (v. 17),

intensifies it (vv. 18-19), sets Philemon in an emotional frame of mind (v. 20);

requests for an ostensible favour (v. 22).” Again, the usage of the indicative

imperatives, proslambou (receive/welcome/accept) in verse 17, elloga (charge)

in verse 18, and anapauson (refresh) in verse 20 puts the force of the argument

mainly on Paul’s deep concern with Onesimus’ welfare or wellbeing.

At the start of the communication, in the exordium, Paul expresses a

prayer wish that the sharing (koinonia) of Philemon’s faith may become

operative. In the peroratio section too, Paul challenges Philemon to prove his

sense of effective partnership (koinonia) by welcoming Onesimus as if he were

receiving Paul himself. Thus, the demands in verses 17-22 emphasise the

importance of improving the master-slave relationship. Paul’s appeal seeks to

redefine the standards of Greco-Roman slavery in Philemon’s household around

the Christian values and moral principles located in Christ.

The antecedent of verse 17a, ei sun me echeis koinōnon, (if you hold

me dearly as your fellow partner), establishes an undisputable clause for Paul to

145
get his appeal through. Paul grounds his main appeal on the mutually

reciprocating life of love, active fellowship and reconciliation in the ministry or

kingdom of Christ. All Christians are koinōnous (fellows/partners) who share

common duties towards one another in a new socio-ecclesial reality. The noun

koinōnos means ‘one who takes part in something with someone,’ for instance,

in business pursuit or commercial endeavour. It also refers to a person who

shares one’s life and has a common interest. In the light of this, some interpret

the konōnos as ‘business partner’ to imply that Paul was urging, albeit

indirectly, to make Onesimus a business partner (Barth & Blanke, 2000). More

correctly, Paul is speaking about the bond of (spiritual) friendship of a common

faith.

Verse 17b is the consequent statement that launches the actual plea. This

apodosis ends with the imperative prolambou. It is the first direct command

which bids Philemon to receive Onesimus as the virtual embodiment of Paul

himself (Fitzmyer, 2000). The term proslambaō is the middle voice often

employed to describe God’s or Christ’s activity of welcoming the believer. In

the letter of Romans, Paul encourages oi dunatoi (the strong) in faith to welcome

(prolambanō) ta asthenōmata (the weak) in faith because God has received both

(Rom. 14:1, 3; 15:7). Also, the residents of Malta displayed rare compassion to

Paul and the shipmates when ‘they kindled a fired and welcomed (proselabonto)

all of them’ (Acts 28:2). This suggestively indicates the unity of Christians in

Christ (Gal. 3:27-28). The forceful pronoun eme highlights that Philemon must

not only accept Onesimus, but he should welcome him as if it were Paul himself

standing before him. As an ambassador of Christ for transformation between

God and humans in the ekklesia, Paul invites his fellow friend (koinōnos) to

146
demonstrate himself by contributing to the transformation mission for

Onesimus, first by receiving him uniquely. McKnight (2017, p. 102) adds,

“[To] give the term social purchase, we might imagine Philemon washing the

feet of Onesimus.” A messenger embodies the sender party. In other words, a

person’s representative is like the person himself. Thus, to receive Onesimus is

to welcome Paul. In contrast, turning away Onesimus or treating him

unfavourably is tantamount to a rejection of Paul himself.

Paul’s conditional clause in verse 18 tactfully establishes the prima facie

that a slave’s flight (in itself) is a legal offence or financial injury to the master.

Lokkesmoe (2015, p. 46) rightly comments that “slaves like Onesimus were

legally considered thieves of themselves and the value of their ongoing services

when they ran from their masters.” By utilising the amplification device,

anticipation Paul offers to compensate Philemon for any wrongful act or debt

Onesimus may have caused. With this literary device, a rhetor perceives the

complaints that could be raised against his argument and brushes them aside.

Paul forcefully proclaims that he will make reparation for anything Philemon

has lost due to Onesimus’ flight.

Thus, Paul incarnationally presents himself to Philemon on behalf of

Onesimus. He orders (elloga) Philemon to reckon Onesimus’ debt to his own

account. The aorist tense, edikēsen (wronged) is contrasted by the present tense,

ophelei (owes), to imply a single wrong deed in the past with a continuous

grievance in the present due to that wrong. Concepts such as adikein (to ‘wrong’

someone), opheilein (to owe) and ellogein (to charge to someone’s account) are

business-related and judicial jargons employed by Paul to take Philemon’s focus

off from Onesimus and place it squarely on himself (Lokkesmoe, 2015).

147
 In verse 19a, Paul gives a conventionally written acknowledgement of

the debt owed to Philemon. The phrase, tē emē cheri theatrically shows that Paul

grasped the pen from his amanuensis to write these words to assure Philemon

that he (Paul) will pay (apotisō) for any damages he (Philemon) has suffered

because of Onesimus. This further underlines how critical Paul takes the matter

and indicates to Philemon that the letter is not a fabricated piece. The language

of debt and Paul’s emphatic vow in guaranteeing for Onesimus have led many

interpreters to suggest that the kind of injustice entailed financial loss (Nordling,

1991). The emphasis on making compensation (apopinō) is evoked by egō (I),

which precedes his own name.

Immediately after the promise of reimbursement, Paul attaches to the ‘I

OWE YOU’ signature in verse 19 with a counter proposition. Employing this

ironic tact of ‘passing over,’ Paul deliberately mentions what he does not want

to say. The rhetor is seen to be enacting paralipsis, a figure of speech that

permits an orator to speak to a subject that he/she ostensibly claims does not

need to be addressed. McKnight (2017, pp. 105-106) renders the verse as “I

could mention that you owe me your life, and I won’t, but I have gone ahead

and said it. Now I would like you to factor this into your decision in welcoming

back Onesimus.” Thus, Paul radically changes Philemon’s status from creditor

to debtor and, in so doing, places him under an immeasurable moral duty to

concede to Paul’s biddings.

Yet, the problem is, in what sense does Philemon “owe” Paul his “very

self.” Contextually, what is in view here is the debt of gratitude and other duties

that come with one’s conversion or gift of salvation in Christ. Paul cheerfully

catechised Philemon into the faith, and so Philemon owes it to him; he must also

148
share with him every earthly blessing. Put differently, Philemon converted to

Christianity through Paul’s evangelisation and catechism. Philemon is therefore

obligated to his spiritual father from that angle because his debt is far huger than

whatever Onesimus may possibly owe him. Tsibu (2021, p. 55) observes that

“if one compares the material debt that Onesimus might owe Philemon with the

spiritual debt that Philemon does owe Paul, it is a fair deal for Philemon to

comply with Paul’s terms of entreaty.” The rhetor has competently used

commercial language to formulate a compelling syllogistic argument to re-align

the will of the audience to his own. Thus, verse 19b brings into focus “the

binding duty that a gift imposes on the one who received the gift – the obligation

to respond in kind, in gratitude and reciprocal munificence willingly” (Tsibu,

2021, p. 57).

Having pressured Philemon to shift Onesimus’ debt to him with the firm

pledge of settlement, he follows up proximately with an indefinable prayer wish

in verse 20. Again, the prayer wish is affixed with a soft imperative, anapauson

mou ta splanchna (refresh my heart!) en christō. It is noteworthy to remark that,

here, Paul uses the same emotive concept (i.e., splanchna) he utilised in verse

7, where he praises God because Philemon has refreshed the viscera or innards

of God’s people. Paul reverts to a more affectionate tone and designates

Philemon once more as adelphē, a reiteration of the same label used in verse 7.

The adverb nai (yes, indeed) as the first word of the verse has a strong

reinforcing function whereas the optative mood of the verb, onaimēn creates an

assurance of an attainable wish en kyriō (in the Lord). This verb is the source

for the noun ‘Onesimus.’ Interestingly, onaimēn forms punning with ‘Onesimon

since both have a similar sound and meaning.

149
 Paul euphemistically presents Onesimus as his own splanchna and

implores Philemon to consider his plea in the realm of Christos. In verses 17

and 18, Paul has persuaded Philemon to welcome Onesimus back as a beloved

brother; however, if for any reason he remains unconvinced, he imperatively

enjoins him to do so (v. 20). It is “in the Lord” and “in Christ” where all this

fellowship is to be located. The Lord bids Christians to be united en Christō and

deal with each other in a spirit of love, forbearance and reconciliation. The

logical flow of Paul’s plea could be reduced to the deductive argument below:

Premise 1: Philemon is highly esteemed as a generous figure who

refreshes the viscera of God’s people (v. 7).
Premise 2: Onesimus stands before Philemon as Paul’s very own
viscera; he has also become a member of God’s people (v. 12)
Conclusion: Therefore, Philemon’s own personality and
Onesimus’ fresh identity as a Christian and euphemistic viscera of
Paul sufficiently implicate Philemon to welcome Onesimus as
Paul’s incarnate (v. 20).

The above syllogistic argument—which is constructed around the threefold

repetition of the word splanchna— is the cornerstone of Paul’s plea. If Philemon

refreshes the hearts of the saints (v. 7), and if Onesimus is Saint Paul’s very own

heart (v. 12), then, to refresh Paul’s very heart, Philemon must refresh Onesimus

(v. 20).

Some readers have reasoned that the benefits Paul is seeking were an

official appeal for Onesimus to be sent back to serve with him in mission work.

Others argue that Paul (in his capacity as amicus domini) is beseeching

forgiveness and reconciliation on behalf of Onesimus and his ultimate release

from servitude. The validity of these interpretations depends on the chosen

hypothesis on factors leading to the separation of Onesimus and Philemon.

150
 My position is that the major ‘benefit’ and ‘refreshment’ Paul is asking

for pertains to the transformation of social dealings between the powerful

(masters) and the powerless (slaves). In other words, what would bring relief

(i.e., a refreshment) to the bowels (splanchna) of Paul is when Philemon re-

orients himself towards Onesimus and interacts with him in a spirit of kind-

heartedness, respect and sensitivity to open enough ways for him to maximise

his humanness in all aspects of life. Paul leaves the actual appropriations of the

intercessory plea to Philemon’s own conscience and moral judgement.

Paul goes on further to place total confidence in Philemon’s obedience

and goodwill. An expression of confidence typically tends to serve a persuasive

purpose. Quintilian (6.1.24-5) advises that “when a rhetor accentuates his

confidence in the integrity of the audience and justice of the cause, he

maximises persuasion on the audience who may have special reasons for being

hostile or ill-disposed to the cause one is advancing.”

The Greek expression in verse 21a could be translated as “I, confident

as I am in your obedience, write to you.” The perfect participle, pepoithōs makes

Paul’s confidence more striking to Philemon. Paul regularly uses this perfect

tense to express his solid confidence in his audience (2Cor. 2:3; Gal. 5:10; Phil.

1:6; 25). Derived from the verb, peithō is employed with a present meaning as

“lean on, put one’s confidence in, trust in.” It expresses Paul’s confidence,

grounded on Christ, is that Philemon will surely acquiesce to his request in the

spirit in which that request is placed, due to Philemon’s generous character and

conduct. The emotions behind this statement serve to undergird the letter’s

appeal by constructing a sense of obligation through praise.

151
 As a deliberate gesture of ‘worshipping’ Philemon in advance with the

confidence formula, Paul basically urges and obligates him to perform the

requests. It is a positive reinforcement tactic projected to induce more of the

good deeds Philemon has displayed in the past. Paul often uses the term hupakoē

to express ‘commitment or obedience of Christian faith’ (Rom 1:5; 16:26) or

‘response to apostolic authority’ (2Cor. 7:15; 10:5-6). Paul is less likely to assert

confidence in his own authority (as an apostle) since he allegedly declines in

verse 8 to do so. More conceivably, the lack of a direct object to hupakoē implies

that Paul is affirming his confidence in Philemon’s commitment to Christ (Gal.

6:2).

In verse 21, Paul throws one more vague challenge at Philemon: “you

will do even more than I request.” He deliberately refuses to spell out what he

means by “more.” Many readers reckon that if the “more” in verse 16 is less

likely a hint for the legal release of Onesimus, then the “more” in verse 21, albeit

indefinite, is reasonably suggesting manumission. According to Petersen

(1988), the “even more” apparently requires Philemon to harmonise “the legal

aspect of his worldly relationship with Onesimus with the social structural

ground of their new churchly relationship by freeing Onesimus” (Tsibu, 2021,

p. 59).

Other interpreters such as Wright (1986), Harris (1999) and Moo (2008)

have inferred from Colossians and argued that Philemon fathomed the “more”

as Paul’s request for the legal liberation of Onesimus to become a fellow-worker

of Paul (Col. 4:7-9). This notion may depict how Philemon concretely expressed

agape to the returned slave even though there is no single word in Philem

devoted to the question of whether the slave should be granted his freedom.

152
What is understandable, however, is that the “more than I say” gives room for

Philemon to handle Onesimus as a brother by receiving him home and

transforming the household relationship to reflect the all-embracing unity in

Christ that replaces the secular social boundaries among people (Gal. 3:28; 1Cor

12:13; Col. 3:11).

Paul wraps up with a future visit to Colossae and staying in Philemon’s

household immediately after being released from prison. He also demands

Philemon to have a guest room ready in advance. This verse (i.e., v. 22) appears

like an aside than an extension of the plea. Nevertheless, and more

appropriately, the verse offers unspecific stress to the request for Onesimus. The

term xenia (guest room) appears only twice in the NT (Philem. 22; Acts 28:23).

It takes on the sense of ‘hospitality’ and the provision of a bedroom that Paul

needed during his visits to the churches.

This official visit would permit Paul to ascertain how Philemon

responded to the message of the epistle. As Lohse (1971, p. 206) puts it, “for he

will come and see for himself how things have gone.” Consequently, the

demand for xenia (a guestroom) and the notification of apostolic parousia act

as negative reinforcers or indirect threats, forewarning Philemon about any

unchristian action he might take against the slave. With these final demands,

Paul closes the peroration of the whole dialogue compellingly.

Epistolary Conclusion (vv. 23-25)

Just as Paul acknowledges the presence of other Christians at Philemon’s house,

he also incorporates the greetings of five people who were with him during the

letter’s composition. Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke know the

contentious domestic issue and, thus, anticipate Philemon’s response. Beyond

153
the conventional courtesy involved, these greetings are also calculated to bring

further pressure on Philemon (Moo, 2008). The situation in Philemon’s

household is not a private matter that affects him alone. How Philemon treats

the issue would have an extensive consequence on both Christians and non-

Christians in the community.

Citing the “holy ones” in the closing benediction and the plural “you”

(sou) is an indication that the epistle was to be performed at a time when the

church had gathered in Philemon’s house. Everyone would be present to hear

the delivery of the letter; they would look forward to how Philemon reacts to it,

whether he will revere the apostle’s plea or penalise the slave.

There is a general notion that people find it harder to turn down a request

made in a public space than one made in private. In public, one’s honour is at

stake, and the least thing one does will amount to shame. Such a rhetorical

setting and strategic time definitely added extra influence on Philemon to grant

‘even more than’ what Paul has asked for. He couches the address in a public

context so as to cajole Philemon before the public. How does one evaluate the

summative outcome of Paul’s intercessory plea, taking a holistic view of all the

rhetorical acrobatics contained in the letter? The next section attempts to

respond to the question.

Evaluating the rhetoric of Philem

The effectiveness of a persuasive piece partly rests on factors outside its content.

For example, the willingness of the audience to consent to a new opinion, the

body expression or postures of the lector, and the social setting in which the

speech is performed, can all affect the persuasiveness of a piece. Factually, the

question of whether or not the epistle turned out well in persuading Philemon to

154
welcome Onesimus positively cannot be answered with sufficient historical

evidence. Nevertheless, the very fact that Philem survived and became part of

the Christian canon signifies that Philemon submitted to Paul’s request.

Invented with deliberative conventions and objects, Philem should be

effectively convincing to its audience from the viewpoint of the same

conventions. Certainly, the desire to avoid social humiliation pressured

Philemon heavily. Tsibu (2021) argues that

when one pictures the occasion of the initial performance of the

letter, – what really took place when the letter was delivered to not
only Philemon, but the Christian community assembled in his house;
how the lector animated Paul’s request; and the atmosphere in the
room where Philemon was now presented with the slave, the latter
seeking mercy, with the gathered saints looking on at the response
of the former, – it can be assumed to a large extend that Philem
achieved its desired outcome (p. 57).

One may draw a general conclusion that Paul succeeded to place Philemon in a

position in which giving in to the request put across was the only way out for

him — to maintain an honourable partnership with Paul and the saints.

Plausibly, the desire to avoid social shame pressed heavily on Philemon

(Russell, 1998; Jeal, 2015). At least, this may suggest that he welcomed

Onesimus with thoughtful compassion and love, without any vindictive

mindset. At a maximum, it may imply that Philemon manumitted Onesimus as

a result of Paul’s plea. Early Church tradition has it that there was a 2nd Century

C.E. bishop of Ephesus known as ‘Onesimus.’ Ignatius cites this Onesimus in

an epistle he wrote to the Ephesians somewhere in the mid of Trajan’s rule (98-

117 CE). In that epistle, as quoted by Holmes (1999), Ignatius wrote:

Since, therefore, I have received in God’s name your whole

congregation in the person of Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love
who is also your earthly bishop, I pray that you will love him in

155
 accordance with the standard set by Jesus Christ and that all of you will
be like him (p. 186).

It is uncertain that this Onesimus is the same Onesimus who is the subject of

Paul’s plea in Philem. Since Paul composed Philem in the early ‘60s of the 1st

Century, Onesimus would have had to be relatively young at the time of his

flight and relatively old at the time of Ignatius’ writing to be the same person.

What is conceivable, however, is that Ignatius was deliberately alluding to

Philem. When he described Onesimus to the Ephesians as ‘earthly bishop,’

Ignatius used pērase en sarki episkopō (i.e., your bishop “in the flesh”). One

can observe a pragmatic contextualisation of the crucial verse 16 in Philem, in

which Paul exhorts Philemon to receive Onesimus back as a beloved brother

“both in the flesh and in the Lord” (en sarki kai en kuriō). On this issue, Tsibu

(2021, p. 58) remarks, “if the same figure in Philem eventually assumed the

office of bishop in the Ephesus Church, then this usage of en sarki was Ignatius’

way of inventively connecting him to that letter which had become noteworthy

in Christian communities.” Whether or not the 2nd Century bishop of Ephesus

was the Onesimus of Philem, it is still remarkable that a person with a slave

label, ‘Onesimus’, rose to the position of the bishop of a metropolitan town like

Ephesus. This also indicates the persuasive plea in Philem was truthfully

transformative in both its primary and subsequent contexts.

Paul’s intercessory plea promotes counter-cultural grace in a context

that conceptualised slaves as objects of domination, where fugitive slaves were

regularly killed or brutally reprimanded. He urges Philemon to consider and

deal with Onesimus as a brother in Christ. His appeal created a circle of

observers at both ends of the discourse to reflect on the message that one’s

identity as Christians surpasses all other social identifiers and divisions of social

156
status. Paul was not in charge of the political powers of his world; he could not

all alone have uprooted the heinous institution of human enslavement. However,

he used his ecclesial authority and rhetorical prowess to cast a new vision for

what the Christian community should look like. With Philem, Paul exhorts

Christ-followers like Philemon and Onesimus to live in counter-cultural

harmony.

Core Labels from the Reading of Philem

From the above analysis, we can deduce the following categories from the text:

1. Communal fellowship and partnership with the slave

The concept “fellowship/sharing/partnership” (Greek: koinonia) appears twice

in the text. The first occurrence is located at verse 6 in the exordium section,

and another usage is found at verse 17 in the peroratio section. In verse 6, Paul

makes a passionate plea (to God) that Philemon’s sense of koinōnia would be

deepened in the knowledge of every good deed incumbent on those in Christ.

The text reveals that the faith (i.e., Christianity) has drawn Paul and

Philemon, Archippus, Apphia, and the entire members of the local church at

Philemon’s house into a common group of relationship that was supposed to be

characterised by mutual love, respect, and good treatment for one another. In

verse 17, Paul appeals to this bond of friendship or partnership of a common

faith (i.e., Christianity) to secure an unusual reception for a newfound brother

of the faith – Onesimus, the slave of Philemon. In fact, this letter was conceived

and written based on Christian koinonia partnered with Paul and Philemon, so

is the central appeal of the letter. It suggests that the idea of koinonia was very

fundamental in many aspects of the Greco-Roman communities.

157
 As a Greco-Roman practise, fellows of a shared relationship fend for

each other; they act in the interest and welfare of their partners. Ideally, they

come out to support or defend a member when outsiders are mistreating him/her.

If Philemon do otherwise, then it would put his bond of fellowship with Paul

and the entire saints into disrepute. Fellows are obliged to demonstrate their

sense of effective partnership by adhering to their defining principles. In

principle, fellows cultivate a sense of respect for each other. Moreover, it was

repugnant for one member to use his/her powers to mistreat another fellow.

Such happenings amount to an aberration of the assumed principles of the

fellowship.

Philemon’s effective koinonia with Paul implicated him to respond

positively to the requests placed before him. We share the tradition of the

Church that Philemon acquiesced to Paul’s plea. Most certainly, he could not

have resisted Paul’s rhetorical coercion when the letter was performed: his

freedom to decide was restricted by Paul’s calculated manipulations. At that

instant, Philemon prioritised his value for Christian koinonia. However, how

did the newly established ‘trinitarian’ koinonia comprising Paul (the spiritual

father), Philemon (the slave-owner) and Onesimus (the owned slave) operate?

Some exegetes and commentators have suggested that Philemon manumitted

Onesimus and sent him off to assist their spiritual father, Paul the apostle, in

mission work. If indeed Philemon took such a bold decision, what might have

prompted it? Among other reasons, can one also argue that perhaps he started

feeling uncomfortable having physical fellowship with his slave? If Onesimus

was not sent off as some interpreters would have us believe, how effective was

the binitarian Christian koinonia between him and the Christian master? Could

158
there have been frictions both encountered as a result of the common

fellowship? There are no historically reliable sources to formulate precise

answers to these questions. Nevertheless, contextualisation of the text from the

patristic era would help us appreciate how the Philemon-Onesimus story has

been (mis)used in other contexts.

2. Conversion, catechism and baptism of the slave

The conversion of slaves into the faith was a common phenomenon during the

earlier centuries of Christianity. Usually, when a pater of a household comes to

faith in Christ, the entire members of the household would be baptised alongside

(e.g., Acts 10:1-44). The primary goal of conversion and catechism was purely

religious: to bring one to faith in Christ and not change one’s prior social status.

The metaphoric clause at Philem verse 10, peri tou emou teknou, hon egennēsa

(concerning my child, whom I have begotten), suggests Onesimus’ catechism

and baptism into the Christian faith and community. Did the catechised and

baptised Onesimus face some hindrances regarding his integration into the

fellowship? We cannot tease out a concrete answer to this pertinent question,

but it is worth asking. Other salient questions to consider include: Why was

Onesimus not a Christian in a household of Christians before the encounter with

Paul? Could it have been that Philemon, the Christian master was not

comfortable with the idea of his slave(s) becoming Christians and thereby

partaking in common gatherings and rituals?

3. The humanity of the slave

The analysis of the rhetoric of Philem indicates the strong emphasis Paul

attaches to the humanity of slaves, especially how they are to be treated.

Throughout his appeal, Paul uses familial language and metaphors to drive

159
home his view about the inherent worth of slaves as human beings. First and

foremost, he describes Onesimus as ‘his own viscera’ and pleads to Philemon

to receive the slave as if he were Paul the apostle himself. In this regard, Paul

exemplifies compassion, sympathy, love, care and respect for vulnerable people

of society. Paul’s explicit demand to Philemon to welcome Onesimus and give

him rest implies that, at all points in time, the Christian has an unavoidable duty

to respect the humanity of one’s subordinates.

The larger Greco-Roman culture refers to slaves as ‘bodies’ or animated

tools incapable of reasoning, hence only useful for subjugation. However, Paul

reverses this inhumane conception of slaves. He labels Onesimus as his ‘child,’

begotten in prison. The apostle also endorses the inherent usefulness of

Onesimus through the literary device of pun. In fact, he also exemplifies

affectionate bonding for the slave when he tells Philemon that ‘sending

Onesimus is like sending his dear self (i.e., heart).’ Again, he offered to assume

every cost Onesimus owes the master. In sum, it can be said that despite the

rugged and shameful state of Onesimus, his beingness as a human person never

eluded Paul. His faith produced in him the knowledge to see the image of God

in Onesimus despite the latter’s social location. It was the same insight Paul

wished for Philemon at the proem section of the appeal.

3. The welfare of the slave

In most ancient cultures, master-slave relationships were characterised by

exploiting those in a weaker position to enhance one’s social and political status.

Kings oppressed their vassal states for constant food supply and labour. Estate

owners or household lords also put their slaves into all manner of tasks to grow

wealth and consolidate their fame. Usually, the masters did not prioritise the

160
genuine welfare of the subjects. As pointed out in Chapter Two, keeping slaves

was first and foremost an economic venture: masters were primarily particular

about their profits instead of the personal growth or mobility of their slaves.

Despite the prominent position Philemon occupied in the Church, there is the

likelihood that he did not really take any genuine interest in the welfare of his

slaves. If he did otherwise, Paul would not have hammered the need for a

humane reception for Onesimus.

Paul carefully presents an appeal that respects the economic rights of

Philemon. At the same time, there is both implicit and deliberate emphasis on

the welfare of Onesimus. Our analysis indicated that how Philemon would

receive and treat Onesimus proves the authenticity of his faith. He risks his share

in the Christian koinonia if he disregards Paul’s appeal and terrorises Onesimus

with threats and punishments.

Another way the concept of welfare plays out in the text is the payment

of Onesimus’ debts. Paul the prisoner literary ‘begs’ Philemon to ‘refresh his

heart in Christ’ by receiving Onesimus honourably. Paul implores him to make

adjustments to enable the slave to serve faithfully in the household. Although

Paul does not locate the welfare of the slave in manumission, he unequivocally

states that the Christian master should not treat Onesimus as a mere slave;

instead, he must create room to enhance the welfare and growth (both spiritual

and social) of Onesimus. The persuasive plea of Paul aims to secure physical

safety and psycho-social security for Onesimus. There are no specifications as

to the forms these should take. Philemon must discern the necessary adjustments

he ought to make so that his free will would not be infringed.

161
 The welfare of Onesimus is linked to accepting him back without

punishment or maltreatment. Therefore, every treatment meted out to Onesimus

should cause him to see himself as a beloved brother of the master, not a useless

slave. This brotherly treatment is to be characterised by “love, clemency,

forbearance, encouragement, gentle rebuke and corrections, compassion,

feeling of acceptance, fellowshipping, reconciliation and opportunities for

improving one’s talents.”

4. Spirituality

Another essential label highlighted in the text of Philem is spirituality. Paul

himself expresses a great sense of spirituality by the greeting formula of the

letter: ‘peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’ to reign supreme

in the lives of the brethren gathered at Philemon’s house. The recipients are to

search for peace, think about it and allow it to take precedence in every matter.

Again, Paul’s initial prayer request for Philemon is that Philemon’s

sense of sharing or partnership in the faith may be deepened in the knowledge

of every good deed that ought to be accomplished in Christ. As Jeal (2015) puts

it, ‘Paul asks for maturity and a mature spirit’ for Philemon. The frequent usages

of familial or kinship concepts give currency to the spiritual brotherhood among

Christians. Philemon is addressed as ‘a beloved fellow-worker’ (v. 2) and ‘my

brother’ (v. 7, v. 20). Paul exemplifies the essence of spirituality by accepting

the depressed and traumatic fugitive; he also pulls the heartstrings to activate

Philemon’s sense of spiritual duty towards his slave. Without some adjustment

by his master, Onesimus cannot have the freedom, time or space to participate

or engage in those activities that could enhance his spiritual life

162
 Nearly all humans have some innate yearnings to connect or identify

their ‘souls’ with a higher being or nature so as to attain meaning or wholeness

in life. Spiritual growth endows the person with the strength and emotional

endurance to handle the challenges of life. Sadly, most slaveholders overlooked

the spiritual development of their slaves. Therefore, Paul requests that

Onesimus be received as a ‘brother’ to imply that the slave would be welcomed

into the Church and be allowed to participate in all Christian rituals and

activities.

5. Clemency and reconciliation

Strangely, there is no Greek word or concept in Philem which translates as

‘forgive (ness). Paul makes no direct plea for forgiveness on behalf of

Onesimus. However, ‘forgiveness’ is a forceful theme in the text. Our exegesis

establishes that Onesimus’ flight alone constitutes a prima facie offence to the

master, not to mention the shame the master might have suffered in the

community due to the incidence. As pointed out in Chapter Two, the Greco-

Roman culture did not entertain infidel slaves: they were punished harshly to

forewarn other slaves of the fate that would befall them should they fall out as

infidels. Philemon, therefore, had every right within the ambits of Roman law

to punish Onesimus severely and/or dispose of him from the household forever.

However, his membership in the Christian koinonia requires him to act in the

reverse form: to embrace the slave, reinstate him and make necessary

adjustments for the slave to feel like one of them – a brother en Christō.

There is also a manifestation of clemency and reconciliation in the text.

For Christian parents, fictive children and maids to experience intimate

fellowshipping, both members, especially the dominants, must be ready and

163
willing to forgive subordinates for their failings. However, the dominant must

develop a mature mindset to ‘put the past behind’ and ‘live in the present’

without vindictiveness. Paul’s appeal challenges Philemon, the Christian parent

and master, to ‘let go’ of the pain, financial loss, frustrations, and troubles

caused by Onesimus. Although Philemon had a natural feeling to turn away the

disloyal slave or punish him severely, he was exhorted to remember his

Christian identity to discern the most excellent way to react to the slave’s

conduct.

Again, there is a display of other religious values such as hospitality and

restoration. It is conjected that Philemon consented to Paul’s plea and restored

Onesimus. This implies he compassionately forgave the slave without

subjecting the contemptuous deed to the details of Greco-Roman slave

regulations. He might have revived his Christian honour before the saints by

carrying out an activity considered shameful in Greco-Roman judgement (i.e.,

welcoming a notorious slave with a kind of hospitality reserved for those who

have proven themselves worthy of it either by birth or personal

accomplishments).

6. Fellowshipping together in the ecclesia

The book of Acts paints a utopian picture where the Early Christian community

comprise people from different social ladder stations—freeborn, slave,

freedmen and freedwomen, wealthy patrons, poor and other social outcasts—

fellowshipped together. These varied people met together regularly to listen to

the readings of scriptures and teachings of the apostles and partook in common

meals and the Lord’s supper. However, in the same Acts, we learn that the

164
inclusive community was suddenly plagued with discrimination on racial and

other social grounds.

Paul’s plea in Philem also highlights his desire for an inclusive

community that would enable Onesimus to fellowship together with the saints

as a brother, both in the physical and spiritual spheres of life since the slave has

now become one of them – converted and effectively catechised (by the apostle

himself). Assuming Onesimus was accepted back to the household of the

master, what was life like for the slave and the master in the succeeding days

regarding Christian fellowship (ping)? Indeed, it would not be wrong to

presume that both might have suffered some psychological discomforts or

uneasiness.

Precisely, it is not known how Philemon felt or would feel about the idea

of worshipping with his slave in the same congregation. The inverse is equally

valid. It is curious to know how long it might have taken for Onesimus to be

accepted into the sheepfold and the roles he might have been assigned to play.

The question is: was Onesimus readily welcome to sit at the same table and ‘to

break bread together with the lord’ during church gatherings? If there were roles

reversals where Onesimus was attended on like a master or a guest of the master,

how would have Philemon and other freeborn at the scene felt about it? Would

it not have sounded very absurd for a wealthy Roman patron to feast together

with his slaves in public where his honour and respect are at stake? Indeed, it is

inconceivable to visualise masters assuming the role of slaves in the presence

of their slaves/former slaves during such gatherings. Obviously, Christian

fellowship might have presented many difficulties to both masters and slaves.

165
It would be interesting to find out how Christians in subsequent generations

contextualised Philem, as the next chapter explores that.

7. Freedom/liberation and equality of the slave

Philem does not overtly plead for Onesimus’ legal emancipation or freedom,

even though a summative deduction of all the various indirection insinuations

may point to such a conclusion. How would Onesimus feel inwardly regarding

equality and freedom, granted he was welcomed ‘as’ Paul, with unique

hospitality? How would have been his sense of joy and fulfilment when having

effective fellowship with his master and the congregation? What about the idea

of (spiritual) liberation as he frequently listens to the word of God read aloud

and the communal benedictions?

Granted that the slave was given the right of entry to Christian

fellowship, he might have internalised certain scriptural quotations and cultic

activities for his own upliftment to enable him to cope with the realities of his

life. Furthermore, especially if he were allowed to share fully in the koinonia,

the slave would undoubtedly derive great joy and a sense of spiritual and social

fulfilment from sharing in the koinōnia en chistō. Finally, the very act of

worshipping with masters, freedmen and women and colleague slaves in a

tension-free atmosphere might have also given Onesimus some sense of

spiritual equality. At least, during moments of cultic fellowship, their social,

racial, and physical differences were transcended (Gal 3:28).

Finally, supposing Onesimus just played the role of a servant (diakonos)

during congregational worship (which is highly plausible), he might have,

nonetheless, derive joy from doing it for the Lord in heaven. From whatever

angle we look at it, Onesimus stood the chance of benefiting from at least a

166
sense of temporary freedom (from secular household obligations). This would

have made him feel some sense of equality or egalitarian oneness with the

master (and the entire congregants) throughout worship.

On the side of Philemon, it is informative to reflect on his sense of

dilemma regarding the decisions he had to make. Most of the activities enjoined

on him by the letter would somehow blur the social boundaries between him

and his slave(s). What were the fears and uncertainties of Philemon regarding

the adjustments Paul asks him to undertake to enhance Onesimus’ life? How

might those adjustments affect Philemon’s social status and honour, and

economic motives in the Greco-Roman worldview? Would he have felt

indifferent or irritated upon perceiving that his slave Onesimus is entertaining

the thought that he is equal with/to the master during Christian gatherings and

rituals, albeit the differences in roles? Supposing Philemon did not release

Onesimus of his legal obligation (a very high plausibility), did it still cross the

mind that Onesimus would (someday) take advantage of their koinonia to

demand legal manumission? If yes, was Philemon prepared to continue giving

Onesimus access to Christian fellowship and teachings? John Chrysostom

complained bitterly that Christian masters were not prepared to expose their

slaves to Christian teachings.

Conclusion

The chapter sought to analyse the rhetoric of Philem using Kennedy’s (1984)

model of rhetorical study as a guide. The exegetical analysis reveals that Paul

appropriated Greco-Roman standards of oratory to mould his intercessory plea

for Onesimus. The discourse is carefully crafted in order to persuade the

paterfamilias to grant Paul’s request. Paul deliberately addresses Philemon in

167
the context of the entire congregation of the Church located in the house of

Philemon (vv. 1-2). By setting Philemon up in a difficult exigency before the

Christians gathering in the house-church, Paul cunningly relativises the cultural

expectation of the paterfamilias. Paul uses intentional praises, concealed

intimidations, and emotive argumentation to pressure Philemon to handle the

issue about Onesimus as a matter of one’s identity in the community of faith.

Even though he does not handle the institution of slavery itself, Paul

transformed the master-slave relationship between Philemon and Onesimus

according to Christ’s lordship and drastically destabilised the core of slavery

from within. Paul’s deliberative goal was to influence Philemon to act out his

faith-relationship in Christ by accepting Onesimus as a Christian brother in

every sense of it.

Drawing an implication from the conventional ways runaway slaves

were treated in the Greco-Roman 1st Century world, I stand to argue that Paul’s

request to Philemon had a strong subversive and transformative tone. It would

have been uncomfortable for a Roman paterfamilias to treat his slave as a

brother. Therefore, one can visualise how radical and subversive it would have

been for Philemon to receive and treat Onesimus, his erred slave, as a beloved

brother.

Some exegetes have concluded that Paul’s decision not to confront the

institution of slavery directly by explicitly demanding the manumission of

Onesimus implied his indifference towards the social realities of master-slave

relationships. Such a conclusion seems erroneous and shows no regard for the

historical context within which Paul was operating. In the specific exigency of

Onesimus being a runaway slave, the urgent solution Paul put up in Philem was

168
probably to secure the immediate welfare of all parties. Thus, Paul persuades

Philemon to accept that Onesimus is truly a human being (who has become a

follower of Christ), forgive him and treat him as a fellow worker in the gospel

of Christ. In return, Philemon consolidates his honour as a great benefactor of

saints and also confirms his priority to his shares (partnership) in the gospel of

Christ.

The message of Philem humanises the master-slave relationship in a 1st-

century Christian community. It replaces Caesar-centric values—characterised

by dominance, exploitative motives and cruelty—with Christo-centric values

which highlight the dignity of all persons, brotherhood, and sensitivity to the

dilemmas of the weak and marginalised. Undeniably, the transformative

character of Philem has played crucial roles in endeavours that eventually split

the rocks of slavery in times past. Again, Philem offers a solid message that

could be sowed into social struggles confronting contemporary communities –

child slavery and exploitation, displaced/stranded refugees and immigrants,

human trafficking and a variety of troubles facing fictive children and parents.

The next chapter looks at the various meanings people put on Philem in their

peculiar contexts.

169
 CHAPTER FOUR

CONTEXTUALISATIONS OF PHILEM

Introduction

This chapter explores the various meanings people assign to Philem in their

context and situations. It looks at how Philem was contextualised in the St.

Thomas community in the West Indies Island during the 18th century and

further explores how specific labels in the text are understood in Christian

households in the Ghanaian community. It aims to point out people’s encounters

with the text within their respective contexts and how specific critical labels

play out. First, I give a brief introduction to the Moravian mission activities in

the Caribbean West Indies. Secondly, I discuss attitudes regarding slavery in the

West Indies context under the various labels derived from the text of Philem.

The choice to explore the contextualisation of the letter in the West

Indies context is premised on the historic connection between the Ghanaian and

West Indies contexts regarding the propagation of the Christian gospel and

values to enslaved people and ‘heathens.’ In one breadth, the link centres around

the personality and experiences of the Moravian missionary, Christian Jacob

Protten, an 18th century African with a Ghanaian mother and Danish father

Although Protten was not a slave, his ‘Odysseus’ experiences at Copenhagen

(Denmark), Elmina, Christiansborg (Gold Coast), Herrnhut (Germany) and at

the island of Saint Thomas in the West Indies – in his independent evangelism

mission to the ‘heathens’ of Africa – opens a conversation on enslavement

practices in Christian communities.

170
 In the middle of 1746, Christian Protten got married to mulatress and a

former slave, Rebecca Freundlich in Herrnhut, Germany. Even though the

Prottens were baptised Christians with legal status as free people, they suffered

mistreatment and abuse in the Christian communities they worked. They never

felt welcomed by the Christian brethren in Herrnhut and St. Thomas. Another

related factor that informs our decision to explore the contextualisation of the

letter in the West Indies is the fact that master-slavery practices among

Christians are well attested to in the pioneering Christian community, which

later sent missionaries to Ghana and other sub-regions of Africa.

The Caribbean presence of the Moravian mission reveals their active

participation in the transformation of slavery in the West Indies. Furthermore,

their ambivalent attitude towards slavery during the 18th Century is an apt

context for critical analysis in this study. The researcher dwells mainly on the

research studies of two scholars. They are Jon. F. Sensbach (2006), the author

of “Rebecca’s Revival: Creating Black Christianity in the Atlantic World,” and

Katharine R. Gerbner (2018), the author of “Christianity and race in the

Protestant Atlantic world.”

The Moravian missionary group

The Moravians traced their spiritual origins back to the Czech reformer, Jan Hus

(1369 –1415). Several researchers of Caribbean history and culture have

emphasised the British Caribbean as the critical indeterminate space for

examining the Christian missions and slavery in the 18th Century. The

Moravian mission developed to be one of the fundamental building blocks for

black Christianity and black protest culture soon after establishing their

presence on the islands. Early-Eighteenth Century Moravians’ evangelicalism

171
equipped many colonised persons with a new belief system to reckon with their

suppression. They set themselves up to bring the gospel to “heathen” in the West

Indies plantations through literacy classes since they were operating during the

Enlightenment period. Their global missionary activities started with the

Caribbean mission in the Danish West Indies in 1732 under Count Ludwig von

Zinzendorf’s guardianship and patronage. Their first missionary batch to St.

Thomas was Leonard Dober and David Nitschmann. Before their arrival, the

brethren were warned that

white people would have a challenging time talking with or

teaching the slaves, and if someone really wanted to do that, he
would have to live among them and become a slave like them, so
that he would be able to be among them and have the opportunity to
instruct them (Gerbner, 2018, p. 24).

Given this, the two missionaries decided to sell themselves into slavery soon

after they arrived in order to get access to the enslaved black Caribbeans for

evangelism. Unfortunately, they were not successful because the land

conventions did not permit white people to be slaves. However, their

enthusiasm to labour among the unfree was a major indication of their firm idea

that only Christian conversion could bring about true liberty.

Despite the hostilities between the white planters and the working class,

Dober and Nitschmann gained the trust of the enslaved black Caribbeans. Two

years later, Friedrich Martin and Matthaus Freundlich joined the Moravian

mission in the Danes West Indies and expanded the mission to the island of St.

John. Later in the same year, 18 additional Moravians (fourteen men and four

women) arrived and went to the island of St. Croix to start a mission among the

enslaved people. However, the Moravians had to wrestle with terrific poverty,

172
physical abuse and unfavourable climate situations in all the islands – factors

leading to a remarkably high mortality rate among their members.

The Moravian community adopted a method of spirituality that made

them distinctive in modern Christianity. Communal fellowship consciously was

emphasized and sustained through diverse and deeply meaningful spiritual

traditions. Through regular fellowshipping in the community’s religious rituals,

the conviction of members about their involvement in Christ’s mission to the

world took shape. They set up ministries to provide education for children, and

secure shelter and charity to non-believers during times of intimidation. Again,

medical support to the neighbouring community was a part of its

multidimensional mission. The Moravian missionaries regularly visited with the

catechised slaves in the slaves’ neighbourhoods, distributing their own food

with the slaves and dining with them. Although today, they would be judged as

kinds of humanitarian aid to the Moravians of Bethlehem, these were altogether

spiritual activities of the gospel mission.

However, Moravians’ pietist type of Christianity irritated leaders and

planters of the predominantly Lutheran and Dutch Reformed settlements in the

New World. What were seen to be extreme ministry endeavours sometimes

provoked an unpleasant response from outsiders. White planters and most

Christian slaveowners violently defended their churches and their religious

rituals from non-white outsiders and discouraged the efforts of the missionaries

to convert the enslaved population. Slave conversion was perceived as a danger

to the social order of the plantation culture. According to Gerber (2018), the

planters tended to associate Christianity with liberty and feared that transformed

slaves would be entitled to manumission.

173
 There were two categories of slave masters in the 18th century West

Indies. The first group were white plantation owners, most of the English

Church who did not want to interfere with the work of their slaves with Christian

instruction. They were the earliest Protestant planters to settle down in the

Caribbean, and they redefined Christianity as a restricted racial label retained

for the master class. Contrasting “Christians” and “negros,” they kept their

religious identities as a testimony of their dominance. Over the 17th century CE,

“these planters established religious and political institutions which were

connected to their patronage of the plantocracy and their characterization of

Afro-Caribbeans as hereditary heathens” (Sensbach, 2005, p. 221). These

Christian planters found it uneasy about allowing their slave to be instructed in

religion because it would absorb too much of their time and eventually cause

the masters some loss of labour and profits.

They were, therefore, not ready to interfere with the routine tasks of their

slaves on the plantations. The farmstead structure needed constant and manual

labour directed in regular duties, and the slave masters were not prepared to let

instructional periods of the negros interfere with the constant operation of the

system. A Jamaican newspaper cited by Sensbach reports a fierce objection of

a plantation officer to slave conversion in the following words:

I will not tolerate your plans till you prove to us they are safe and
necessary; I will not suffer you to enlighten our slaves, who are by law
our property, till you demonstrate that, when they are made religious and
knowing, they will still continue to be my slaves. (Sensbach, 2006, p.
97).
His conviction, which undoubtedly was shared by many co-planters,

was this: to allow the missionaries to establish a group of reading, moral,

church-going slaves would amount to committing a tragic mistake. The same

174
notion was shared by the long-established English Church on these plantations

(i.e., Anglicanism). The Anglican rectors were not just disinterested in the

conversion of slaves but also opposed other missionary groups who came to the

islands simply to evangelise to the enslaved negros. For instance, in Antigua, an

Anglican rector dragged a Moravian missionary to court for catechizing and

baptising negros into Christianity. Masters were not prepared to give slaves their

freedom instantly after baptism. The few ones that received baptism were still

kept as serfs by their masters.

The second group consisted of a few white plantation owners and Moravian

Christian masters who permitted the slaves to attend bible studies and cell

meetings during and after working hours. They presented a new

conceptualisation of Christian slavery that comprised both the slaveholder and

the enslaved. Their view was that introducing Christianity to the slaves would

make them better servants to their masters and more valuable members of

society.

However, scholarship on Moravian reveals that the missionaries of later

decades were sharing the sentiments of plantation owners more than the plights

of the enslaved people. They seemed to have abandoned their commitment to

remain neutral as much as possible politically so as not to endanger their

missionary work. Although they also purchased slaves for the subsistence farms

which they needed for their economic existence and never granted their slaves

legitimate liberation, the early 18th Century CE Moravian mission shook the

racial hierarchies between the enslaved and freed Africans in the West Indies.

Their missionaries had the conviction and practice of equalitarianism and

respect for every individual in the ecclesial community.

175
 The policy paved the way for “African members not only to learn to read

and write – indeed with the primary goal of studying Holy Scripture – but also

to hold a variety of administrative and theological positions in their

congregations” (Sensbach, 2005, p. 45). Slaves were ordained as deacons,

elders and co-workers in multi-race communities. It can be said that the

Moravian culture afforded the enslaved Africans loopholes “to steal their bodies

out of slavery by the performance of such expressive acts of freedom.” The

enslaved Africans refused to be possessed as slaves, fugitives, and commodities

but as human beings by these acts. One would not be wrong to assume that

Paul’s teachings about the management of slaves, especially as we find them in

Philem, provided some impetus for their stance on the subject.

Against the backdrop of the above overview of the Moravian mission, I

will proceed to apply the categories developed from the organic analyses of the

Philem to the West Indies’ setting. By doing so, I endeavour to draw attention

to how the people of St. Thomas—the white planters, Moravian missionaries,

Afro-Caribbean Christians and enslaved blacks—tended to contextualise issues

raised in our reading of the Philem.

Opportunity for slaves to develop themselves in St. Thomas

Moravian history mentions an Afro-Caribbean mulatto named Alton Ulrich,

who performed influential roles in the coming of the Moravian group to St.

Thomas. His letter of invitation to Zinzendorf highlighted some of the miserable

positions enslaved black people found themselves in the West Indies. In the

early 18th century St Thomas context, typical white planters abhorred any

initiative that would bring personal development to their slaves. Literacy and

books, for instance, were restricted to only the white class. They feared that it

176
was risky to expose slaves to reading and writing since that would afford them

intellectual power to agitate for equality.

More importantly, the white planters were intimidated “by the idea that

Christian slaves would be able to give testimony in court” upon receiving

literacy and scriptural education (Gerbner, 2018). An anonymous planter

approached the Moravian missionary, Spangenberg and said to him, “if the

negros were told that all men were the same before God, it would weaken their

respect for the whites. And our lives would not be safe.” (Gerbner, 2018, p.

173). In British Jamaica, for instance, the Baptist sect was accused of having

produced in the minds of the Slaves a belief that they could not
serve both a Spiritual and a Temporal master; thereby occasioning
them to resist the lawful authority of their Temporal, under the
delusion of rendering themselves more acceptable to a Spiritual
Master (Gerbner, 2018, p. 173).

However, the Moravian missionaries still taught their slaves literacy and

numeracy skills. According to Pietist notions, a person must read the Bible by

himself/herself to work actively with scripture and continually engage with

different parts of the text in small weekly discussion groups. They tried to

convince the plantation owners that the negroes would become more servile

when they can read for themselves how the Lord Jesus want them to behave

towards their masters. Few of the white Christian planters treated their slaves

kindly. An example was the master and mistress of Rebecca Protten. Born in

1718 to a European father and African mother on the Island of Antigua, the

mixed-race Rebecca was kidnapped and auctioned into enslavement at the age

of six to Lucas van Beverhout, a famous plantation owner on the Dutch island

of St. Thomas. However, they freed Rebecca from slavery at a very tender age

after teaching her reading and writing and Christian instruction. The Beverhouts

177
were pietistic Christians and soon became uncomfortable with the idea of

maintaining a slave.

In fact, the Moravian bishop, August Spangenberg was surprised by the

mercilessness of slavery on the plantations when he visited the islands in 1736.

He wholeheartedly resolved to support the initiative of merging Christian

instructions with teaching slaves to read and write. According to Gerbner

(2018), Spangenberg argued that “when they learn to read the testimony of the

Scriptures, the negroes can see for themselves how to avoid the false teachings

and wicked life of the so-called Christians under whom they live” (p. 91). The

Moravian brethren did not underestimate the inspiring value of literacy to

bonded individuals. In a late 19th Century CE text, Frederick Douglass, a former

slave, attested to slaves’ own understanding of the emancipation that reading

could offer. He once exclaimed, “[The] more I read, the more I was led to abhor

and detest my enslavers” (Gerbner, 2018, p. 98).

Interestingly, the diaries and letters of the missionaries reveal that some

slaves seemed only to be attending Christian meetings only for literacy

purposes.

They were not willing to sit still and listen when they learn about the
blood that Christ sacrificed for them, it is reported but instead seemed to
want to hurry the missionaries up to get to the part where they teach
them how to spell (Gerbner, 2018, p. 99).

According to Gerbner (2018), the missionaries regularly express worry in their

reports that several slaves seem to take advantage of them. Whereas the

missionaries showed sincere efforts to teach reading and writing in the context

of spiritual matters, the slaves were, on the other hand, eager to separate these

two ideas from each other. As a result, the enslaved Africans discovered a clever

way of acquiring literacy through Moravian religious instructions.

178
 The ‘opportunistic’ tendencies exhibited by the enslaved black people

caused Nitschmann’s objection to a resolution of Princess Hedwig and the

Senior Chamberlain von Plessen in Copenhagen that converted slaves would be

granted liberty. Nitschmann’s resolve that the slaves should firmly not be

manumitted upon baptism was an essential doctrinal adaptation to West Indian

slave society influenced by their belief that Onesimus continued to serve in his

earthly station as Philemon’s slave despite both being Christian brothers. Seeing

that “the Negroes [had] the ability to take on the appearance of being Christian

quite easily without any true transformation of the heart,” Nitschmann showed

both his firm resolute toward pietistic development and his consciousness that

blacks could take advantage of a religious prospect to enhance their own social

condition (Gerbner, 2018). Thus, he concluded that Christianity should be

separated from emancipation to check both dishonest conversions and planters’

resentment. With strong determination to promote genuine slave conversion, the

missionaries championed the entrenched position that slaves would continue to

be servitude even after they are freed from their “spiritual” bondage.

Fellowshipping among enslaved, freed and free Christians in the West

Indies

For Nicolaus Zinzendorf, the ecclesial community stood for communion. He

considered that the notion of Christian fellowship was essential to the nature of

the church. Zinzendorf once confessed, “I acknowledge no Christianity without

fellowship.” Sensbach (2005) argues that the baptism of blacks and their

zealousness for Christ never gave them immunity from mistreatment and

segregation. The case of Rebecca Protten vividly illustrates the conditions of

black Christians among the white planters and Christian brethren. Although

179
baptised and emancipated at a tender age, Rebecca continued to suffer many

tribulations and their consequences. Her mulatto status bestowed privileges as

well as obligations so much so that she had to move carefully and

sympathetically among many civilizations. In her odysseys between Denmark,

Germany, and the Gold Coast, Rebecca and the second husband (i.e., Christian

Protten, an African mulatto) never felt entirely accepted in any place or among

any group of people.

The white Brethren regarded them as different, not quite one of them,

despite their profession of spirituality and equality among the godly. Christian

Protten, for instance, was called ‘an African wild savage and Moorish,’ a very

derogatory category at the time (Sensbach, 2005, p. 169). He struggled

consistently to reconcile his African and European identities. Thus, Christianity

was the only thing left to these uprooted children of the slave trade.

Nevertheless, for Christian Protten, faith was not always the panacea as it was

for his wife, Rebecca, who found fortitude in the gospel and used it as a vehicle

for expressing her tenaciously strong will. The belief that she had a heavenly

fate, strengthened by her incarceration and trial years earlier, remained with her

for life. The dilemmatic experiences caused Christian Protten to feel that he will

be better off in Africa among his own types, mulattoes in Ghana.

Baptism and its impacts on social boundaries between slaves and

slaveowners

The baptism and evangelisation of slaves were not encouraged or enforced in

the Protestant group of St. Thomas. It was left to the discretion of slave masters,

but the majority of them avoided or outrightly declined the view that their

human ‘articles’ should or could be transformed to Christianity. The slave

180
owners were predisposed to regard conversion as a subverting and erratic force.

Only a few masters permitted their slaves to be baptised. Favoured slaves were

granted baptism. If the enslaved individual showed himself or herself to be

worthy, then baptism and freedom would perhaps follow.

Again, planters complained that “making the slave a Christian tended to

break down that sense of inferiority, which helped keep the Negro docile”

(Sensbach, 2005, p. 56). The white planters were troubled that allowing their

slaves to become Christians would disrupt the social order and deprive them of

their most enslaved labourers. They had conceptualised the categories ‘being a

Christian’ and ‘being a slave’ as diametrically opposite. Psychologically, the

slaveholders were not prepared to share a common status (i.e., Christians) with

their slaves.

The fear was that baptismal and communion rituals would place the

enslaved on equal social levels with the white planter. Rightly so, some

converted and baptised slaves began to appeal to the common baptism they

share with their masters for equal rights and treatment. For instance, on one

occasion at St. Thomas, the slave brother Petrus talked back to his master,

saying that “he was no longer obliged to serve his master since he was no less a

baptized Christian than they were” (Sensbach, 2005, p. 143). Petrus

contextualised baptism as a rite that takes away differences in status between

masters and their slaves. He argued from scripture “that Onesimus no longer

became a slave to Philemon” following his conversion and baptism.

To the slaveowners, the proper demeanour of slaves to their superiors

was one of respect and panic, not a mindset acknowledging that “we are all

miserable sinners.” Consequently, they sought legal provisions to ensure that

181
conversion would not imply freedom. That is, no slave was to be freed by

becoming Christians. The Moravian’s emphasis on the equality of all humans

before God and the innate sinful human rendered their Christian education

suspicious to the planter-class. The white planters persistently forced them to

align their theology to the social order of the time. This made the Moravians

theologise that conversion and baptism events do not guarantee physical

freedom from earthly servitude. According to Zinzendorf,

earthly stations were fixed and ordained by God. The coming to faith in
Christianity brings spiritual freedom and equips the slave with the inner
strength to endure his/her earthly station in life. A heathen must have no
other motive for conversion than to believe in Jesus (Sensbach, 2005, p.
178).
In the process of adapting their theology in such a way that the planters would

not feel threatened by their mission works, the Moravians unconsciously

became champions of the idea of Christian slavery, which theorised that

“Protestantism and slavery could sustain and reinforce each other.”

The Protestant thinker Nitschmann highlighted the insignificance of

“outer” slavery to Christian conversion. “The freedom of Christ”, he asserted,

“does not mean freedom from the yoke of actual slavery.” He stressed that long

working hours did not conflict with the Christian practice of the enslaved and

free blacks. Nitschmann argued that “genuinely concerned about [their]

salvation” would find that “Jesus will bless the little time that you have at your

disposal.” He urged them to “remain obedient to your masters and mistresses,

your overseers” and asked them to “perform all your work with as much love

and diligence as if you were working for yourselves” (Gerbner, 2018, p. 106).

There is a recorded conversation between a Moravian missionary,

Christian Heinrich Rauch and Mathew, a slave driver on the St. Thomas estate

in May 1760. Mathew visited the missionary Brother Gandrup and discussed
182
Paul and Onesimus’s story regarding the baptism of slaves. This story, from

Philem, recounts Onesimus’s flight to Rome, where he met Paul in prison and

received his baptism. Another story they debated was the story of Philip and the

Ethiopian recorded at Acts 8:26-40, which recounts Philip’s journey to Ethiopia,

where he met and baptised an Ethiopian eunuch. Sensbach has commented that

“the missionaries were not fond of both stories because they indicated that the

gospel should be spread to Africans as well as Europeans. Mathew,

nevertheless, had another understanding of the stories” (p. 201). After listening

to them, he approached the missionaries to make a case for his own baptism.

However, the missionary denied him what Philip had granted to the Ethiopian.

Re-enacting the character traits of the Ethiopian and Onesimus, Mathew

declared that he “believed that [his] creator is the Lord who redeemed [him]

with his blood” and demanded immediate baptism. Sensbach (2006, p. 62)

remarks, “while Mathew did not win this discussion immediately, his argument

cut to the heart of debates within Christian communities about what it meant to

be a true Christian.”

However, the moment enslaved individuals started pursuing and

obtaining baptism for themselves and their children, the white planters were

compelled to re-evaluate the relationship between freedom and Protestantism.

“Could slaves become Christians, should all Christians be free, could free black

Christians become citizens with the same rights and liberties as European

colonists?” These are some of the questions posed by the Christian planters.

Protestant missionaries, especially the Moravians answered these by

emphasising “whiteness,” rather than Christian identity, as the basic marker of

dominance on the island. Planters kept forbidding all but their most favourite

183
slaves from Christian rites, and they opposed the missionary works through the

18th Century CE.

Moravian baptism gave the privilege to black women to become an

effective instrument for connecting with black slaves on the West Indies islands.

For instance, when the German Moravian missionary Freidrich Martin

fortuitously met Rebecca, he identified her great potential for mission among

the enslaved blacks on the plantations, so he quickly ordained Rebecca and

welcomed her into the Moravian community at St Thomas. According to

Sensbach, Rebecca’s role in the mission served as an illustration of the inclusion

of blacks into the cultural space of European whites. As a result, Rebecca

excelled as the principal motivator in the Moravian mission in St. Thomas

during the mid-1730s (Sensbach, 2005). This can be related to Paul’s baptism

of Onesimus and his plea for an unconditional welcome for the erred slave.

The experience of Rebecca among the Moravian brethren shows that

blacks experienced segregation, humiliation, and inferiority from their white

counterparts. The white authority of St. Thomas was less sympathetic to

Moravian activities and detained Rebecca in its castle. Her “crime” was

wedding Matthaus Freundlich, a white Moravian. A Dutch Reformed pastor

resented that none of Rebecca’s rites was legitimate under Danish rule. It was

considered not fitting for Rebecca the Afro-Caribbean mulatto Christian to

marry a white Christian brother. Their common baptism did not nullify any

social barrier between the former slave and the European missionary. On more

than one occasion, Rebecca was tagged with an allegation of minor stealing, all

part of insensitive moves by Christian masters to restraint religious passion of

enslaved persons. She and her husband were persecuted beginning in 1738 and

184
eventually landed themselves in prison. As the antagonism and discrimination

grew so severe, they were finally exiled to Herrnhut, where her husband died

two years after their daughter’s demise.

Later on, Rebecca got wedded to an Afro-European mulatto from

Christiansborg, Christian Protten, an African mulatto brought to Herrnhut by

Zinzendorf to be trained as a missionary to Africa. Despite the difficulties of

life for the Afro-Caribbean Rebecca, she is regarded as “the model for the

spread of evangelical religion through New World slave communities”

(Sensbach, p. 240). She encouraged enslaved blacks to place their trust in an

ultimate reality that had not forsaken humankind but pursued justice and

clemency to liberate the entire globe. Many slaves and freedmen came to

embrace the Christian faith with a keener sense of its enduring meanings than

many of their owners displayed. Thus, Christian baptism afforded enslaved

Africans as many privileges for developing their spirituality as challenges in the

forms of discrimination and bitter treatment at the hands of white Christians and

masters.

Treatment of slaves in the West Indies Islands: The White planters and

the Moravians

The Moravians inferred from Philem and other household codes that Paul did

not rule against the keeping of slaves. They argued that Onesimus was not only

returned to the master but was also commended as a reformed slave for the

master’s profitable use. The Moravians maintained slave estates themselves.

When Frederick Martin came to St. Thomas, he bought an estate with the slaves

to provide himself with land on which to build a church, labour to provide an

income to free himself from mission work, and indeed, slaves at hand whom he

185
could convert. Martin conceived the idea that if many slaves belonged to the

mission, it would provide the mission with a good opportunity for converting

them, without interference from masters who might not be so sympathetic to the

use of daylight hours for instruction.

Also, Zinzendorf directly bought back for the St. Thomas stations some

of the slaves who had been sold away to other islands but whose conversion had

made them valuable as helpers to the mission. The difference between mission

plantations and already existing white plantations was that slaves who worked

on the mission farms were allowed time off for instruction in reading and

writing. The whole principle of the Moravian mission in the West Indies was to

work within the framework of society as they found it, not to revolutionise it

nor meddle in its affairs.

Despite a deliberate alignment of Protestant mission and economic

ideology of the white planters in the New World, Sensbach (2005) believes that

“the Moravian Brethren offered a more visceral and ritualistic Christianity than

most other Protestants, and some of their symbols and traditions” (especially

their emphasis on blood and their regular singing) appealed to the cultural

heritages of the Afro-Caribbeans. For instance, Martin demanded that bibles be

made available to the slaves on the plantation. Even though slave owners were

not so happy with it because they felt such a development, the enslaved blacks

revered the bible as a magical formula – a book with potent powers to transform

their situations.

The former Afro-Caribbean slave, Alton Ulrich, worked with the

Moravian mission as one of their overseers in the St. Thomas Moravian

community. Ulrich believed that since Moravians had initially offered a chance

186
for travel and companionship, they would support the members of his family

who were still imprisoned in West Indian slavery. Later on, he also purchased a

plantation and a slave. As a former slave of the same island and now a converted

Christian, Ulrich treated his slave differently: he granted the slave opportunity

to develop his spirituality. For Ulrich, being a Christian was significantly

connected to improving one’s societal position (Sensbach, 2005, p. 187).

The welfare of Slaves in 18th Century West Indies

The Moravians were straightforwardly critical of the slaveholding class when

they first landed in the West Indies. These missionaries inspired converted

slaves to use Christianity to reverse the established power structures on the

farms. Their interpretation of Philem was that masters could keep their own

slaves as domestic servants with close personal ties to them. As noted earlier,

the Moravians purchased slaves to work for them, but they hardly saw

themselves as slaveowners. To them, buying a slave was the best way to

“rescue” him or her from some desperate plight. Thus, they continued to keep

domestic slaves until the day of emancipation was upon them.

The enslaved Christians of the white planters complained about the

contradictions between the beliefs and habits of those who oppressed them.

Sensbach remarks,

[If] slaves had to judge Christianity only by their white masters, few
might have become Christians voluntarily. They were well aware of
the shortcomings of their owners, whose faith was often merely a
Sunday profession, ignored during the rough week (Sensbach, 2006,
p. 114).

Some of the slaves who acquired the power of literacy began to appropriate

portions of scriptures to defend their Christian freedom and equality. When the

187
slave Anthony Burns had been excommunicated in absentia for running away,

he penned to the Baptist congregation in Virginia that “God created me a man -

not a slave and gave me the same right to myself that he gave the man who stole

me to himself.” He further argued from Philem that “St. Paul sent Onesimus

back to Philemon not as a slave but as a brother beloved-both in the flesh and

the Lord,” as “both a brother-man and a brother-Christian” (Sensbach, 2005, p.

46).

The spirituality of slaves in the West Indies

Generally, white planters were not primed to see the potential for the spiritual

salvation of their slaves. Only a few quietly introduced their favoured slaves to

Christianity, taught them to read and sometimes granted them manumission

after baptism in the traditional church. Most ‘elite’ slaves often experienced this

rare privilege. The Moravians considered social standing as unimportant to

spiritual salvation. Despite their notion that conversion and baptism do not

confer freedom from physical domination, the Moravian missionaries tried to

practice their cardinal doctrine in Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor

Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one

in Christ Jesus.” They interpreted the text to mean ‘divine equality’, which

cancels all forms of social boundaries in the ecclesia.

In keeping to this doctrine of divine equality, they elected women and

black people as deacons, helpers, elders and bishops. They were the first Church

to provide equality for women and statuses of spiritual leadership designated to

black individuals. As a result of this emphasis on spiritual equality, Rebecca

Protten had spiritual power and authority over white women folk. She became

188
the first black woman ordained in Western Christianity when she was made a

deaconess in 1746 at St. Thomas.

In Philem, Paul was first and foremost keen on the spiritual freedom of

Onesimus. Therefore, he catechised and commended the slave to the master to

support him with brotherly affection to help him grow in the newfound faith.

However, the apostle refused to make any direct demands for the manumission

of Onesimus because he knew that was against the ownership rights of

Philemon. Based on this understanding, the Moravians argued that Christianity

did not ensure manumission and that “true freedom could be found only in

conversion.” Essentially, the Moravians took this stance to please the farm

owners who feared losing their human property if their slaves embraced

Christianity. Informed by these theological positions on slavery, Dober and

Nitschmann returned to Europe with bought slaves. Nitschmann landed in

Copenhagen with a slave named Jupiter while Dober brought back Oly-Carmel;

both were minor males. Each had his slave baptism at a tender age, yet they

refused to manumit them.

At least, there is little evidence suggesting that the early Moravian

missionaries in the British West Indies transferred Paul’s spiritual statement of

equality in Galatians 3: 26-28 to the secular realm as well. For instance, at St.

Thomas, they frequently interacted with Afro-Moravian members during the

night. While, in all probability, these gatherings were meant for Christian

worship and lessons, the planters regarded the night activities also as possibly

rebellious pursuits on the island.

Relating their action to what Paul says in Philem 16, it could be inferred

that the missionaries understood their brotherhood with the slaves both in the

189
spiritual and secular contexts. Not only did Paul catechise Onesimus; he also

cared for the slave by pleading to the master to attend to all his needs: both

spiritual and social.

Again, the “invisible church” developed as a safe place for slaves to

express their concerns. The Christian faith gave the slaves a unique identity and

character that reality seemed to belie: they are sons and daughters of a God who

genuinely cares and loves them. According to Sensbach,

the enslaved blacks revered the bible as a magical formula – a book

with potent powers to transform their situations. Although the
enslaved Africans were pressed up against the wall by slavery’s vast
assault upon their humanity, the tragic circumstance compelled
them to discover in the religion of their white oppressors a faith
whose depths few of the latter had ever suspected, enabling both
enslaved and freed Black Christians to reconcile suffering and hope,
guilt and forgiveness, tyranny and spiritual freedom, self-hate and
divine acceptance In that faith, some of them found the strength to
throw off their bonds, and many others the dignity, when once
emancipated, to stand up free. (Sensbach, 2006, p. 176).

These traumatised Christian slaves came to use the Bible as ‘a coded

incantation, ‘a talisman’ to declare their particular value in the face of abuse and

mistreatments by their masters and mistresses. The Moravians emphasised inner

freedom by assuring the black Christians “that they could ascend to Christ if

they reformed their ways and experienced a true heart conversion” (Sensbach,

2006, p. 176).

Pleading to a higher authority

The enslaved blacks who mastered the art of reading and writing took formal

steps to register their complaints to higher authorities for intervention and

redress. In one instance, seven slaves wrote a letter in 1739 with the support of

650 learned black adherents of Jesus Christ to the Danish king, Christian VI, a

190
figure who held the largest share in the Dutch West Indian cooperation. In that

letter, these slaves registered a protest about plantation owners’ continual

“mistreatment of the Moravian missionaries who were working among the

slaves; along with recounting how plantation owners have burned the slaves’

spelling books and how some slaves have even had their ears and feet cut off as

a punishment for reading the Bible” (Sensbach, 2005, p. 106). Also, the seven

slaves explicitly opposed the incarceration of two white missionaries and asked

the king to display his mercy and grace (Sensbach, 2005). The action taken by

the slaves could be related to Paul’s intercessory letter (i.e., Philem) concerning

the treatment of the slave.

In some breadth, it is interpreted that the slave Onesimus expressly set

out to seek Paul to plead on his behalf before his master. According to scholars

who subscribe to the Amicus Domini theory, Paul was the most influential figure

that came to Onesimus’ mind at the time. However, Paul wielded no political

powers at the time, except within the ecclesia. In the West Indies context,

however, the Moravian slaves did not plead to Zinzendorf, the patron of the

Moravian mission. Instead, they wrote to the king. The enslaved black

Christians probably thought that Zinzendorf’s neutral stance on slavery could

not permit him to instruct or command the white planters to stop the abuse of

their slaves. Besides, the Count did not have a secular or spiritual partnership

with the white planters that he could exploit to address the grievances of the

embittered enslaved Africans. However, King Christian IV did and came to their

intervention.

191
Freedom/manumission of the slave in the 18th Century Moravian

theology

As already noted, the white planters and landowners were reluctantly exposing

their slaves to Christianity because they felt the faith would empower their

enslaved properties to agitate for physical freedom. Thus, the planters were not

ready to risk their business by allowing the enslaved workers to be taught

Christian instructions. The Moravians understood the concerns of the plantation

owners and assured them that the conversion, baptism and instruction of their

slaves in Christianity would not affect their physical status on the island.

Zinzendorf is said to have admonished the slaves at St. Thomas in the following

words:

That by all means you [slaves] may be subject & faithful to your Masters
and Mistresses and them that have Authority over you and may do your
Work with Love and Quietness, as if it was your own; for you must know
that Jesus himself helps us his Children in the Labour: For the Lord has
admitted everything, King, Lord, Servant & Slave. Everyone is to abide
in the State & Condition, the Lord has set him in, to be satisfied with his
wise Council. For the Lord has ordained Death as a Punishment for all
Men, the Children of God must die also, but it is only a Sleep for them,
they cheerfully go with their Body into their Grave and with the Soul to
their Saviour. So God having punished the first Negroes with Slavery,
their souls’ salvation now makes their Bodies not free, but only takes
away that Stubbornness Laziness Unfaithfulness and Ill which made
their Slavery so hard. For our Lord himself when being in the World
gave himself to be a Servant and Workman till the last two years before
he went out of the World, which is written in his word for an Example
to all Servants (Gerbner, 2018, p. 113)

The Count theologised the belief that the enslavement of black people is a

necessary condition for the salvation of their souls. Again, he explicitly stated

to the enslaved people that their acceptance of the Christian catechism and

baptism does not guarantee freedom from physical bondage. To a large extent,

Zinzendorf’s exhortation implies that the Moravians in the Caribbean mission

192
field and their fellow community members in Herrnhut grappled with the

concept of slavery. With the view that any direct demonstration would

jeopardise their mission, “the Moravians settled, at least officially, for the

division between physical slavery on earth and spiritual slavery in eternity”

(Gerbner, 2018, p. 98).

The Moravian missionaries focused on the inner freedom or salvation of

the enslaved Africans. They were not so concerned with the emancipation of the

negroes. To them, Paul was categorically clear about the spiritual fellowship of

Onesimus and brotherly status over and above everything else. They understood

Paul’s admonition to Philemon only in the spiritual sense. Philemon was

required to make necessary adjustments for Onesimus to deepen his faith

through regular fellowship, listening to the public reading of the scriptures and

making him focus on the freedom of his soul.

Moravian evangelists like Dober and Nitschmann adjusted

themselves to Caribbean society and concluded that “outer” enslavement was

of little consequence. “Whether in bondage or not,” the missionaries reasoned,

“Afro-Caribbeans could become free by embracing Christ, not by receiving

their free papers” (Sensbach, 2006, p. 126). Thus, they insisted that slaves could

continue to be slaves even when they have become Christians. Instead of

suggesting liberation, Dober and Nitschmann emphasised the consequence of

‘inner slavery’ to the small number of converts who expressed interest in them.

They maintained that anybody who participated in non-Christian conduct was a

“slave of the devil, regardless of whether that person was physically free or

bonded.” Thus, when Anton Ulrich’s sister Anna paid them a visit on January

17, 1733, with the grievance that the manager abused her inhospitably, the

193
proselytisers declined to console her or take any transformative activity on her

part, telling her that “this could be a great opportunity to truly call on God so

that she could be freed from her inner slavery since her outward slavery was of

little consequence.” True freedom was explained as a behavioural and spiritual

category. It meant “sincere conversion—not emancipation, a position that was

most likely resented by blacks who either hoped to or had—earned their

freedom after conversion” (Sensbach, 2005, p. 145). Rebecca Protten, for

instance, was not troubled with personal freedom because she was emancipated

by her owners while still young. Nevertheless, spiritual freedom, as Rebecca

understood it, was more challenging to come by.

In conclusion, one can observe that perhaps there was a ‘Philemon

ethical dilemma’ in handling slavery in Christian households. On the one hand,

there was the feeling that God ordained slavery and that slave masters were to

maintain that convention and use the proceeds for the good of humanity.

However, on the other hand, there is the issue of justice and equal treatment of

humanity.

The next sub-section gives an overview of modern slavery in the

Ghanaian context and proceeds to examine how Ghanaian Christian parents and

employers as well as fictive children and maids relate to the text of Philem and

the message they derive from it.

Modern slavery: An Overview of the Ghanaian Context

Modern forms of slavery constitute a global phenomenon that, one way or

another, affects each country in the world. Governments, civil society and

development partners of every continent have expressed grave concerns about

the devastating impacts of slavery on human dignity. A research project

194
undertaken by ILO and Walk Free in 2017 revealed that over 40 million

individuals live in enslavement currently, “21 million forced labour, 15 million

forced marriage, four million sexual exploitation, 71% were women and girls,

25% were children, 23% were in Africa” (ILO, 2018). Ghana is no exception to

the global challenge of modern slavery, as “it remains to be a source, transit and

destination country for human trafficking, child labour, forced labour, debt

bondage or bonded labour, domestic servitude, descent-based slavery, child

slavery and forced or early marriage” (TIP Report, 2019).

The abusive use of humans, particularly children, within Ghana is more

prevalent than transnational modern slavery. Ghanaian youth are exposed to

forced labour, such as in fishing, domestic service, street hawking, begging,

portering (‘Kayaye’) child trafficking in illegal mining (‘Galamsey’), quarrying,

herding, and agriculture. In 2017, the Ghanaian government was briefly

downgraded to the lowest tier 3 category by the US State Department following

their annual Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report.

The majority of modern slavery cases in Ghana involve the vulnerable,

excluded and poor people who are tricked, exploited and trapped. They usually

have very appalling and unfavourable external circumstances that lead them to

succumb to the inhumane fate of their modern slave masters as a way to fend

for themselves, their dependents and their families. There are cases where young

people from the northern part of Ghana travel south and to some bordering

countries to work as farm bonded labourers. In most situations, these young

people work a whole year on plantations and large farms but are remunerated

with old motorbikes while some return home without anything. Other factors

195
accounting for menace include naivety, family separation and neglect, weak law

enforcement and poor policy implementations. In other instances,

Ghanaian women and children are recruited and sent to the Middle East,
West Africa, and Europe for forced labour and sex trafficking. Licensed
and unlicensed recruitment agencies recruit young Ghanaian women for
domestic service or hospitality industry jobs in Gulf countries. After
their return, many of them report being deceived, overworked, starved,
abused, molested, and/ or forced into prostitution. Ghanaian men were
also recruited under false pretences to go to the Middle East where they
were subjected to domestic servitude and forced prostitution”
(Trafficking in Persons Report 2016, United States Department of
State).

Successive governments have introduced policies to build an enabling

environment that can support children and youths for a better future. One can

mention Free SHS, School Feeding Program, Youth Employment Programs

(YEA), National Health Insurance, and the LEAP. Yet poor management and

supervisions plague the operations of these interventions and as a result, are not

able to offer sustainable solutions to the menace.

In the year 2019, the Government of Ghana (GoG) celebrated the

famous “Year of Return in remembrance of the 400 years since the first enslaved

Africans landed in the United States.” The initiative intends to restore the lost

past of 400 years, boost investment in Ghana from the African diaspora and

African Americans, as well as “make the country a vital travel destination for

the diaspora.” Interestingly, despite the historic memory of the ordeals of the

African fathers, Ghana continues to witness worse forms of modern slavery. It

is cogent to argue that initiatives against the inhumane treatment of Africans in

the past can hardly achieve anything meaningful when modern forms of slavery

still confront the people.

196
Contextualisation of Philem in the Ghanaian Domestic Milieu

The empirical respondents of the study were sampled from two discrete

groups of people: Christian parents, guardians, or foster parents constituted the

first Group (A); the adopted children, maids, and house servants formed the

second Group (B). In all, ten (10) maids and fictive children and ten (10)

Christian parents/couples in Christian households were sampled and

interviewed. The researcher did not bring together maids, fictive children and

bonded labourers to form one big group for the interview. Instead, each

Christian parent or employer sampled for the study was interviewed separately.

This was done to ensure that each participant was not intimidated by the

presence of another figure. It afforded both foster children, maids and Christian

parents a trusted environment to express themselves as they wished.

Most respondents of the first Group (A) were related to those in the

second Group (B) in an ongoing master-servant relationship. In such instances,

the researcher sought permission to interview the Christian parent before the

foster child of the same household. I verified information offered by both

respondents of the same household or connected in a master-servant

relationship. Salient revelations and information given by a respondent of the

First Group (A) were noted for verification; questions were posed around such

information to the fictive parent or employer of the fictive child/maid or

employee in question. In the same breath, I sought corroborations on the

information of Christian parents and employers from their fictive children.

The researcher assumed that Philem is somehow an unfamiliar text to

most Ghanaian Christians. The following measures were taken to ensure that

the respondent has acquainted himself or herself with the text.

197
 First, I asked the respondent if he/she knows there is such a book in the

Christian Scripture as Philemon; and whether he/she had read it before or heard

it read in any context or understand what the text is about. Then, again, I asked

whether he/she has heard any portion of it or characters in the letter cited or

referenced in any conversation before. Each respondent’s oral responses to the

preliminary questions helped me to determine whether he/she ‘knows’

something about the background of the text or the narrative contained therein

before I proceeded with the actual interview instruments. Next, I offered them

an opportunity to hear the text read aloud to them in their mother tongue for

those unfamiliar with the text. Finally, for those with literacy skills, I asked them

to read the text themselves. For each respondent, I allowed time intervals to

reflect on the text before I proceeded with the main questions of the interview.

Their responses indicated the various meanings they put to the text regarding

particular labels or topical issues.

1. What is your general knowledge about the letter to Philemon?

The first respondent of Group A expressed that Paul wrote the letter to a

Christian slave owner in Colossae to beseech him to forgive the stubborn slave,

Onesimus. He added, “I doubt Philemon just accepted the slave back without

some corrective punishment to deter him from repeating the act.” Another foster

parent also said that Paul was in prison and received news from Timothy that

brother Philemon’s slave has run away. The slave eventually came to Paul in

prison. And Paul converted him into Christianity and asked him to go back to

his master and serve him because that is God’s will. The same respondent added

that Paul ‘did not only encourage Onesimus to be strong in his slaver situation

but also commanded the master to be a good master for the church’s good

198
name.’ The fourth Christian parent said that Paul is praising a generous man for

using his resources to meet the needs of Christians. However, Paul is also asking

him not to be cruel towards the slave who is coming back to serve him because

both are equal human beings in the Lord.

The fifth respondent of Group A said that Philemon was a kind Christian

master but had a slave who was a lazy, gluttonous thief. Despite Philemon’s

caring treatment for his slaves, Onesimus stole some properties and ran away.

Philemon was worried and angry that he would punish the slave mercilessly

when found. However, Paul wrote this letter to plead with Philemon to forgive

the slave and treat him better. The same participant added, “if you

wholeheartedly do good to someone who does not deserve such treatment and

yet the person later betrays your kindness, it is very frustrating and unfair. I

think Philemon was very nice toward his slave, but the slave was not

appreciative and instead stole the master’s precious items and ran away with

them.” The last but one Christian foster parent said that keeping slaves was

allowed in ancient societies; punishing bad slaves was also a conventional

practice in those societies. However, Paul wrote this letter to plead to Philemon

to exercise restraints and allow Christian virtues of love, forgiveness, and

acceptance to reign supreme in the matter. The tenth Christian parent

interviewed said, “being a Christian and keeping slaves was acceptable that is

why Paul was sending back Onesimus to the rightful master.” Paul thought it

was not good to separate slaves from their masters and advised the slave to

return home. She added, “it is not good to have wicked Christian masters in the

church, so Paul wanted the master to use his authority over his slaves to show

him some love and good treatment.”

199
 From Group B, the first maid of the Christian household interrogated

indicated that the letter was written to Philemon to tell him that it is unchristian

to keep someone’s child as a slave and so he must accept Onesimus back and

stop treating him as ‘an akoa’ (i.e., a slave). The second respondent of Group

B, a foster child, said that letter is about a mistreated slave who ran away from

the cruel treatment of his master for safety somewhere even though he knew it

would be dangerous when caught. Another one added that the slave was initially

disappointed in Paul when the apostle said he must be returned to the owner.

Another fictive child expressed an earlier view that Onesimus suffered

continuous mistreatment in the master’s house, so he ran away for his life. The

last respondent from Group B said the letter addresses a dicey situation in a

Christian household: a generous Christian with slaves in his household; one of

the slaves who ran away from duty was being returned to him. Paul was saying

to this Christian slave master to show mercy and kindness towards both the

slaves in the household, especially the one who just returned because he has

accepted Jesus as his Lord and personal saviour.

The responses of the two groups reveal that each group of participants

was using their current experiences to convey the sense they make of the letter.

For example, fictive Christian parents articulate the perceived insubordination

of the slave in the narrative despite the generosity of the Christian master. On

the other hand, most of the fictive children and maids were using their situation

to question why Philemon, albeit a good Christian, was bent on treating the erred

slave cruelly had it not been Paul’s intercessory appeal.

200
a) What meaning(s) do you make from Philem regarding the welfare and

personal development of slaves?

The first respondent from Group A said that a Christian must treat the slave as

a brother or sister. According to her, ‘the master must respect the slave; he

should be there always for the slave in times of trouble and care for the basic

and emotional needs of the slave; he must promote the ultimate interest of the

slave which is freedom.’ The second respondent expressed that Philemon must

exercise brotherly virtues towards his slave. ‘He must relate to the slave as true

brothers relate towards one another. He must listen to the concerns of the slave

and refrain from treating him as a stock character.’ The same respondent added

that ‘Philemon should give room for the slave to acquire skills and knowledge

that would help the slave be independent when he acquires his freedom.

The third interviewee of Group A concluded that Paul set an example by

sharing the gospel with Onesimus, which led to the slave’s conversion. That is

what it means to say that you care for a person’s welfare and growth. He added,

“what Paul did for Onesimus indicates that he cared for Onesimus’ spiritual

welfare which had implications on other aspects of his life.”

The fourth Christian parent made an interesting analysis of the text.

According to him, there are two influential figures in the narrative: Paul and

Philemon. Paul has used his location and power to introduce Onesimus to the

gospel. Now the slave is not just an ordinary slave; he has become a Christian

slave in both senses of the phrase. Philemon is thus expected to use his authority

as a slave master for good works by forgiving the slave of his mistakes and

giving him fair wages. He reasoned further, “I think what Paul means by ‘more

than a slave, but a brother’ is that Philemon should be a fair and kind master to

201
Onesimus.” He must not cheat the slave of his due wages or rewards and other

incentives. Even more, he must acknowledge the services of Onesimus and

reward him more than he deserves. The spirit of love that characterises his

charitable deeds to the saints should be evident or explicit in his relationship

with the slave. There should be a time that Onesimus cannot help but praise the

master for his constant encouragements, gifts, and other forms of underserving

support he has enjoyed from his relationship with the master.”

The sixth respondent of Group A also expressed a view similar to the

fifth interviewee. Paul took an express interest in Onesimus’ situation. He did

not regard him as an unimportant person or a useless slave who does not deserve

love and attention. Despite Paul’s circumstances, he embraced the slave with

uncommon love and affection. He taught him the Christian teachings and

referred to him as ‘my child, my innermost being, my heart’ in the letter he

wrote to the master to seek forgiveness and acceptance for him. He added, “Paul

also referenced other Christian brethren to support Onesimus with their

influence to ensure that the slave is not mistreated anymore by the master. What

Paul did for Onesimus and what he asked Philemon to do for the slave together

constitute points to the welfare of the slave.”

The ninth respondent of Group A held that ‘Philemon was supposed to

think about Onesimus and treat him in the same manner he would have done for

the apostle.’ Philemon was generous towards Paul and the other Christians. He

supported the growth of the Church with his resources, influence, and prayers.

Paul’s asked him to extend the same generosity to the slave Onesimus, no matter

how least and underserving he appears.

202
 In Group B, the following responses were offered by the maids and

fictive children that were interviewed. The first maid said that “Philemon must

correct or rebuke the slave in love. He must refrain from physical and

psychological abuse. His utterances can break the spirit of the slave. He must

be decent in words and deeds towards him.”

The second interviewee from Group B indicated, “what Paul was doing

for Onesimus is an illustration of what God did for an undeserving human race.

I was taught in Sunday school class that humans were sinners and did deserve

God’s punishment, but Christ came to die and intercede on behalf of humans.

God accepted the sacrifice of Jesus and pardoned humans of their wickedness

and sins, and so today we are daughters and sons of God: no more slaves.” She

added, “this is what Paul was demonstrating when he has come all out of himself

to plead for forgiveness, love, and a second chance for an erred slave so that he

[Onesimus] might have a proper relationship with his master.” He further said

that Paul introduced Jesus Christ to Onesimus because everybody deserves to

experience the love and promises of Jesus, whether slave or free. This is an

important start when talking about the welfare and growth of the slave. When

the slave grows in the wisdom of God, he will become more beneficial to the

master. Thus, the master should give the slave time to worship and not prevent

him from going to church.

The third respondent of Group B indicated that Paul spoke kindly of

Onesimus even though he knew what the slave did was not the right thing. “Paul

is different from other people; he sees Onesimus as a useful person to God, the

church and the household.” Perception is an essential aspect of welfare and

growth. Philemon was being asked ‘to think of the slave as a human being like

203
himself, capable of good works in an environment characterized by love,

patience, and forgiveness’ Another fictive child re-echoed the views of the third

respondent. Paul is gentle towards Onesimus and Philemon even though he has

more power over them. He does not coerce or threaten them to do what is

harmful to their lives. Based on Paul’s example, “Philemon is being asked to

remove the threats of punishment to allow the Onesimus to feel secure and at

ease to do his work in the household.”

The fourth fictive child who doubles as a domestic servant responded

that Philemon should not overburden the slave’s task in the household and on

the field. He must consider that Onesimus is also a human being and not ‘a beast

of burden’ and so should not be made to perform unreasonable tasks. By

Christian consideration, Philemon should find out the state of the slave and

whether his strength or wellbeing at a material moment could permit him to

perform some challenging tasks. He added, “for me, if I were the slave

Onesimus, I would feel well treated, as a brother, when my master speaks to me

with a friendly tone and humane words or jargons. If he calls me with derogatory

or ridiculing terms like akoa, (i.e., a servant) as if I don’t have a name and shouts

or yells at me with the least mistake I make, then I will not feel that I am being

treated as a human being.”

The final maid interviewed expressed that the mental picture you have

about someone, or an object determines how you treat such a person or the

object. The text is inviting Philemon to re-imagine Onesimus as, first and

foremost, a human being despite the present social location of being a slave.

That is what Paul meant when he said, “more than a slave, a brother” in verse

16). She added, “a human being should be accorded human treatment: not

204
overworking her; no mistreatment, exploitation, and inhumane punishments.

Genuine brothers or sisters think of each other’s interests. They scratch each

other’s back. Onesimus services, in many capacities, make life comfortable or

get certain things done in Philemon’s household. Philemon should reciprocate

it by pursuing the slave’s interest. Anything that would make the slave’s

condition improve and enhance his work, the master should make provision for

them.”

b) How was Philemon expected to demonstrate clemency and

reconciliation toward the erred slave?

Group A’s first respondent said that Paul expected Philemon not to act on

impulse. Instead, he wanted him to give careful thought to his identity in Christ

and the fellowship in the Church before he takes any action regarding the

returned slave. The second respondent of Group A answered that Philemon was

required to remember that his faith in Christ equips him with spiritual power to

exercise forgiveness towards those who wrong him, regardless of the person’s

wrongdoing.

The third interviewee from Group A expressed that Philemon was

expected to make a public utterance suggesting that he has forgiven the slave.

However, he added, “I don’t think Paul was expecting Philemon to dramatize

his anger or fury against the slave; instead, he was required to respond with

words like ‘Onesimus, you’re forgiven, don’t let this repeat.” Therefore, instead

of revenge, Philemon must show forgiveness and affection.

The fifth Christian parent indicated that the best way Philemon was

expected to show forgiveness and decide to relate to Onesimus on a new page:

he was to relate to Onesimus as a new being by resisting the natural temptation

205
of playing the gallery. However, Onesimus was still his slave, and therefore,

Philemon must trust the slave again, even better than before and allow the slave

to attend to him as he used to.

The eighth Christian fictive parent interviewed said that one of the core

values of Christian living is letting go of others’ mistakes and reconciling with

them for peace to prevail in the community or the house. She added, “it is not

easy to forgive a betrayer or an ungrateful person. I think Onesimus was an

impatient slave who did not want things done the master’s way. If he

acknowledged before Philemon and everyone present that he is sorry for what

happened and promised that it would not happen again, then Philemon was

bounded by Christian teachings to publicly tell them that ‘for Christ’s sake, I

have let go of your offence.’”

The first maid responded that forgiveness is a process that must start

from the inside. Philemon must decidedly forgive the slave in the heart and

refrain from emotional revenge. The second fictive child demanded that

Philemon forgive in both words and deeds. He added, “Onesimus himself must

experience the power of forgiveness through the ways the master relates towards

him and the observers” over time, others must come to testify that the

relationship between the master and the slave has improved for the better. The

third fictive child said that the master was expected to reinstate the slave to his

former position before he fled away and rectify those factors that might have

caused him to flee.

The fourth maid gave the opinion that Philemon should temper revenge

with underserving mercy. “It is said that two wrongs do not make right,” said

the respondent. Again, she added, “punishing the slave would instil fear in him

206
and certainly caution the other slaves from running away, but that is only a

temporary solution to the situation. However, the more excellent yet unusual

response was to show the returned slave mercy, forgiveness and love. This

would make a lasting impression on the returned slave; it will cause all the

slaves in the household to have a positive orientation towards the master. Love

is stronger and more effective potent than all mechanisms of controlling others

combined.”

The last respondent of Group B reacted that some masters refuse to see

the face of a defaulted servant anymore. Thus, he would prefer to sell him off

to another (often a harsh) master or terrible condition to learn their lessons. He

retorted, “I think that an option Philemon was contemplated when Onesimus

was brought before him. Generally, masters fear disloyal slaves because there

is the notion that such persons can incite or infest the minds of other slaves in

the household. Therefore, he could have said, ‘I have forgiven you, but I cannot

admit you into my house anymore.’ However, that is not the response Paul was

asking for. The apostle wanted the slave to be spared every punitive punishment.

Besides, he wanted Onesimus to be reinstated to work for the master. Indeed,

Paul is asking Philemon to give Onesimus another chance to serve him. So

Philemon should react positively to every service Onesimus is going to render

in the household.

c) From the text, what steps were Philemon expected to implement to

promote the spirituality of his slave Onesimus?

The first respondent from Group A expressed that Philemon should give

Onesimus a free period to worship with fellow Christians. The master must not

overlook the slave’s spiritual needs. She added that since Onesimus has become

207
a Christian, Philemon should engage in Christian discourse or conversation with

him for mutual edification and praise of God. The second Christian parent added

to the earlier view that Philemon, being the patron of the house-church, should

allow Onesimus to use his talents and skills to serve God in the vineyard.

Another Christian parent said Onesimus can develop his spirituality if he is not

discriminated against or made to feel inferior during fellowshipping because he

is a slave

The third respondent believes that there would be possible conflicting

situations, especially when Onesimus is supposed to accomplish some tasks for

the master but where at the same time, the slave would like to join believers to

worship God. In such circumstances, the master should make an adjustment for

the slave to perform his domestic duties without missing the opportunity to

fellowship with believers.

The first maid said that if Onesimus is allowed the privilege to read the

bible and listen to bible readings and sermons, his spirituality will improve

significantly. He should be made to feel welcomed among the brethren. He

added, “during weekly meetings, the master should allow the slave the freedom

to freely express his desires and wishes before God. I think Onesimus would

still perform petty tasks at church: arranging chairs, setting the table for the

master and his friends, washing their feet, and attending on them as when

necessary.” Especially in such a holy setting, the master should not make his

work tedious. They should allow him time also to enjoy the ceremonies. The

third fictive child interviewed expressed the opinion that the master should

support Onesimus to achieve his spiritual aspirations. Supposing Onesimus

208
wants to go and work with Paul as a discipline, the master should make a costly

sacrifice by allowing him to go.

Another interviewee from Group B suggested that “the slave should be

allowed to put off the apron or slave’s garment during a church gathering. The

master should allow the slave to wear a garment to make the slave feel different

from his mundane status.” She explained, “I am not saying that he wears the

same cloth but at least something different from the usual slave garment.

Philemon should also permit him to put on footwear and keep his hair in order

not to appear odd in the gatherings of the saints.”

Also, the fourth interviewee from Group B maintained that meaningful

brotherhood starts with spiritual exercises such as fellowshipping together and

partaking in common rituals. He added further, “Philemon should remove every

perceived hindrance that could inhibit Onesimus, who has become a Christian,

to meet and interact with other Christians, both free and enslaved.”

The last fictive child suggested that “Philemon must not deliberately

send Onesimus on errands on the Lord’s Day where Christians meet and

worship.” Again, Philemon should ensure that the slave is not given an extended

and exhausting task that would occupy the slave’s time the whole day, making

it impossible for him to attend religious meetings. In short, the respondent was

saying is that Philemon must ensure there are no stumbling blocks to Onesimus’

desire to worship God and fellowship with the saints.

209
d) What intimate terms and practices exhibited or recommended by Paul

paved the way for Onesimus to realise his true freedom and dignity?

Moreover, what aspects of Philemon’s character could have helped

Onesimus to realise his freedom?

In Group A, three respondents identified key familial and emotional

metaphors Paul used the slave: ‘my child,’ ‘begotten under pain of physical

imprisonment,’ ‘brother,’ ‘my viscera,’ etc. One of them indicated that Paul’s

deliberate decision to share Christ’s message of grace was the true beginning of

Onesimus’ freedom. “In the Christian worldview,” she argued, “true freedom

begins with receiving the message of Christ; it finds its truest expression in

Christian rituals and living.” Thus, Paul’s baptism of Onesimus is the supreme

expression of Paul’s wish for Onesimus to be a truly free person. Another one

cited John 8: 36 to draw the inference that ‘the freedom granted by Christ is the

true freedom. All earthly statutes do not really count in Christ.”

In addition, another Christian parent indicated that “Paul used the

message of the Cross to set Onesimus free from all earthly concerns like

manumission, wealth, power and status.” She also reasoned that Paul’s

interaction with Onesimus fortified him with spiritual strength to cope with his

earthly conditions.

The sixth Christian parent mentioned that Philemon had good a name in

the community and the church. It would have been unwise for him to allow the

wrong deed of his slave to destroy his hard-earned reputation. The urgency to

safeguard or consolidate his image presented a strong call on Philemon to show

mercy to the newfound Christian. Our elders say, ‘good name is better than

riches’ (din pa ye sene ahonya).

210
 The final Christian parent employed the story of Peter and John about

the lame man at the Beautiful Gate in Acts 3: 1-10 to draw a beautiful analogy.

He said, “It is like the cripple man at the entrance. This man just asked for

temporary alms [money], but Peter and John surprised him with something

greater and lasting than what he had requested (i.e., the enablement or ability to

walk and praise God freely). “In a similar manner,” she continued, “I think

Onesimus looked at Paul’s status and concluded that the apostle could secure

for him earthly freedom. However, Paul had a bigger vision for Onesimus’

holistic wellbeing and dignity. He rather secured for the slave everlasting

freedom in the Lord, a spiritual freedom which eventually brought him every

form of earthly dignity and freedom he never dreamt of securing by his own

efforts.”

Regarding Group B, the first maid wondered why Philemon is praised

as a generous Christian yet had a ran away slave. She added, “some people are

generous in public contexts, but they lack a good name in their own homes.

They love to be praised in the social groups as philanthropists and patrons, yet

they do little for the welfare of their workers and housemaids. I do not think

Philemon was such a Christian benefactor. However, if he was a mean and

exploitative master, then the letter sought to convict him with word of God to

change from such an inconsistent attitude.”

However, the second respondent of Group B explored the possibility

that Philemon was a kind Christian towards all and sundry, including his slaves.

The slave’s bad attitude brought the master so much pain and disappointment

that he probably resolved to stop treating slaves kindly. Paul’s letter came in to

encourage him not to stop the good works he had started. “He should continue

211
to extend equal kindness towards his slaves because whatever good we do, we

will receive the same again from the Lord.” Another respondent expressed that

Philemon should refrain from threatening the slaves with his earthy power and

authority because both have the same master in heaven.

The final interviewee from Group B responded that if there were

anything that could have caused Philemon to show mercy and pursue the dignity

of his slave, then it was the Christianity of the man. Paul’s appeal is built on

Christian beliefs and values supposed to be shared by anyone who calls

himself/herself a Christian. He added, “Paul mentions that Philemon was a man

of hospitality, kindness, love and compassion. The problem was that Philemon

was kind towards only selected people who, in his judgment, deserved such

hospitalities. He neglected his workers and servants in every act of generosity.

However, Paul’s letter exhorts him to extend this very Christian deed unto

everyone within his horizon, including the underserving slave, Onesimus.” This

Christian character, already demonstrated by Philemon, could help Onesimus’

personality improve.

I noticed that Christian parents, maids, and fictive children explain the

Philem in their specific circumstances. Thus, it clearly establishes how they

understand the text concerning the questions posed. In our next chapter, we will

find out how Philem is used in various household contexts regarding the

treatment of maidservants and fictive children.

Conclusion

From the dialogic discussion in Chapter Four, it is apparent that the same bible

is understood differently by many Christian masters and their servants. Some

interpret it to justify the keeping of slaves, maids, and unequal treatment. Other

212
parents and masters, however, have the conviction that Christianity is against

the keeping of slaves, unequal treatment for one’s slaves or servants and maids.

In the St. Thomas context, the white planters were not prepared to set their

slaves free because they needed slave labour in their homes and on the

plantations. Furthermore, they distrusted the missionary work of the Moravians

because they felt these missionaries have come to the Islands to set the enslaved

negroes free with the gospel of Christ, to make their slaves equal to them.

In those dilemmas, the Moravians adapted their message and interpreted

texts like Philem to suit their situation. Zinzendorf assured the plantation owners

that Christian conversion and baptism does not bring about emancipation; their

slaves will continue to serve as Christian slaves. Also, the conditions at St.

Thomas were such that it was difficult and more expensive to hire the services

of free negroes. This forced the Moravians to buy and keep slaves for economic

activities for their survival. However, they decided to treat them as servants and

also minister the gospel to them. Unlike the white planters who were also

Christians, the Moravians understood the text as making a case for the

spirituality of enslaved negroes. They had the view that a spiritual slave is likely

to become a better servant to the master. The planters rebuffed the idea of

exposing slaves to practices that would promote their spirituality and welfare

because that would soon bury the boundaries between a master and slave. Their

view was that Paul does not command or ask Philemon to release the slave;

instead, he promised him the slave would become a more valuable slave.

Some pietistic Christians like Beverhouts set Rebecca Protten free and

taught her reading and writing because they interpreted Christianity as a culture

that does not support keeping others as slaves. Interestingly those few negroes

213
that acquired their freedom due to the Christian convictions of their masters

never experienced genuine fellowship in the religious ceremonies and meetings.

Some never felt welcome by white Christians. An example was Rebecca and

Christian Protten

Again, the text was explained to negro slaves that inner freedom is more

important than outer freedom and that one must not strive for liberation; instead,

they should focus on the liberation of their souls from bondage to sin and

wickedness. However, many who became Christians sought to use the same

scripture and biblical stories to argue for equality with the masters and physical

liberation from enslavement. Therefore, they began exploiting any available

opportunity presented by Christianity to acquire literacy skills and a deeper

understanding of scripture to make a case for their freedom. They interpreted

Philem according to their present location and predicaments, fears, anxieties,

hopes, and interests in such desperate situations.

In the Ghana context, most Christian parents or employers understand

the text in their peculiar situations. Their experiences inform their

understandings of the text with maids, feelings, interests, and Christian

convictions. Similarly, the fictive child/maid/labourer puts himself/herself in

similar situations to Onesimus and evaluates the text in terms of their past or

current experiences. It sets the stage for examining the actual appropriations

people make from their understanding of the text in concrete situations. As

Gadamer says, the text seizes to be autonomous because every reader sow and

reaps subjective meanings in tandem with one’s historical situatedness.

214
 CHAPTER FIVE

APPROPRIATIONS OF PHILEM

Introduction

This chapter seeks to present various proactive usages people make of the text

and the tensions arising from it. In both St. Thomas and the Ghanaian contexts,

Christians have appropriated and subverted portions of Philem to resonate with

their contextual needs without a full grasp of the historical and literary meanings

of the text. Finally, the chapter deduces implications from the practical usage of

the text.

Pragmatic usages of Philem in St. Thomas, 18th Century West Indian

context

The Christina planters and their slaves in the West Indies faced tensions

regarding what the Bible says about freedom and enslavement. One group of

people (i.e., the white planters, mainly of the established English Church) used

the Bible to keep their servants as slaves. The other group (i.e., Moravian

missionaries, a German Evangelical mission) employed the same book to make

their servants develop completely different orientations about life without

completely releasing them from slavery.

Some white planters did not have problems allowing their slaves to

participate in religious gatherings in the evenings. However, the dilemma they

faced was when the slaves were not returning home on agreed time because

church programs were delayed into mid-nights. After such programs, the slaves

appeared tired and could not work efficiently because of insufficient sleep.

Christian masters who felt they were not getting enough labour banned their

slaves from participating in those evening church meetings. These masters did

215
not see why plantation work should be interfered with by the religious activities

of their slaves.

The enslaved negroes argued that the bible is the common source by

which all people can relate to one another as brothers and sisters. They

interpreted Philem as a message of freedom, and so they sought to free

themselves from their enslavement to white planters. However, for the white

Christian planters, the bible does not rule against having a slave or a servant.

The planters who freed their slaves, like Rebecca’s masters, felt that the negroes

can still work under them as free servants. The Moravian missionaries embraced

a similar position. Zinzendorf held the view that negroes can be Christians while

serving as servants on the plantation of their masters.

In the West Indies, the plantation owners interpreted the text to suit their

economic interests: Paul endorses a slave’s status; hence it is biblical to keep

slaves. On the other hand, the slaves also appealed to the bible to say that in the

kingdom of God, there are no slaves, we are all sons and daughters of God’ and

hence it was wrong/against scripture to continue serving as slaves. The negroes

resorted to the bible to reclaim their dignity and worth from white planters’

dominations. For instance, it is reported that in 1737, an enslaved woman at St.

Thomas pulled out the bible – as a spiritual weapon – and read it to a plantation

overseer who was about to violate her sexually. The woman courageously read

to the man about his sins and the divine punishment he would receive from God.

The application of Philem and the scriptural declaration of “you are all one in

Christ” by the Moravians paved the way for slaves to experience “first white

people who were paying respect to the negroes” (Sensbach, 2005,165). This and

other usages of the bible by the Moravian Caribbean mission encouraged many

216
enslaved people to start forming ideas of their own empowerment and humanity

in the Caribbean world.

One also notices that the same Moravian missionaries also bought a

whole sugar plantation together with the slaves on them. Their understanding

was that the black slaves would be working for them, but they would not treat

them as slaves. They ensured that their slaves were not over-worked, abused, or

mistreated like other planters were doing to their slaves. The gentle treatment

of slaves stemmed from their understanding of what Paul says in Philem, that

‘Onesimus should be treated as a brother.’ In Moravian theology, treating a

slave as a brother did not imply abrogation of the master-slave relationship

altogether but instead being sensitive to the interest of the slave so that both will

have a win-win situation. With this understanding, the Moravians exposed their

negroes to reading and writing and the gospel’s teachings. They invested in the

holistic development of their slaves. Zinzendorf took their welfare and

spirituality into consideration and paved ways for the slaves to improve, yet the

master-slave boundary was maintained. In return, Zinzendorf and the Christian

planters expected their slaves to perform their assigned obligations with

diligence and wholeheartedness (Sensbach, 2005).

Unfortunately, the Moravians did not always enjoy or experience a ‘win-

win’ situation despite brotherly attention paid to their slaves’ conditions. They

were not ready to release them from the legal bondage of slavery, yet they were

determined to make the slaves have different thinking about life. Later on, many

black slaves discovered opportunities to argue for equality and freedom.

However, the dilemma of Zinzendorf and the missionaries was that most well-

treated slaves became lazy, unproductive, and difficult to control. Because of

217
this, the Moravians decided to hire slaves from other white planters instead of

buying and managing them.

Before discussing how Ghanaian Christian parents are appropriating the

message of Philem, it is important to situate the conversation within the legal,

social and cultural context of the country. It is legitimate to interrogate the state

of Ghana’s constitution on modern slavery and which institutions are working

to eliminate the heinous practice from the social lives of Ghanaians? The answer

to this question could be gleaned from the description of modern slavery in

Ghana’s legal system as well as efforts being made by the government in

curbing the menace.

Modern slavery and the Legal System of Ghana

All forms of modern slavery are unlawful in the republic of Ghana. However,

the concern has been that the legal systems of the country do not work as

enshrined in books. The lag in the legal system frustrates the efforts of NGOs

that are partnering with the Government to stop modern slavery. If suspected

perpetrators are identified yet independent investigations are not carried out for

prosecution, then people will be incentivised to engage in the illegal practice.

Ghana Government’s efforts at curbing modern slavery

Nation-states bear a prime obligation under international human rights law to

enforce human rights standards. This obligation is assumed by states through

the signatory and endorsement of international human rights instruments. In the

recent past, there have been collective efforts to recognise and tackle the

phenomenon of contemporary slavery in Ghana.

218
 To address the challenges of all forms of modern slavery, Ghana’s

government has made effort in executing policies, legislation, and programmes.

These are aimed at addressing the concerns of victims and bringing perpetrators

to book. These measures seek to address the root causes of trafficking and

provide an inclusive approach to tackling human trafficking in Ghana. The 1992

constitution of the Republic of Ghana proscribes slavery and forced labour

(section 16) and indicates that it is the basic right of any individual “to work

under satisfactory, safe and healthy conditions” (section 24). Section 28

guarantees children “the right to be protected from engaging in work that

constitutes a threat to …(their) health, education or development.”

Since children are the most vulnerable group in society when it comes

to modern slavery, the GoG has reinforced the protection of children by passing

the Ghana Children’s Act (Act 560) in 1998. This Act bans abusive child labour,

defined as “labour that deprives children of health, education and development.”

Ghana has approved the ILO Minimum Age Convention., which is: “13 years

is set for light work, 15 for employment and apprenticeship, and 18 years for

hazardous work.” The catalogue of dangerous work includes “going to sea,

mining and quarrying, carrying heavy loads, working in manufacturing

industries where chemicals are produced or used, and working in places such as

bars, hotels and places of entertainment where children may be exposed to

immoral behaviour” (Parliament of the Republic of Ghana, 1998). Furthermore,

Ghana forms part the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child of

the African Union. The Charter states that “every child should be protected from

all forms of economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely

219
to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral

or social development” (Organization of African Unity, 1999).

Another initiative is the enactment of the Human Trafficking Act, 2005

(Act 694), which stipulates a lawful outline for contending human trafficking

by seeking “to stop and suppress trafficking, penalise persons complicit and

initiate interventions to promote the protection and welfare of victims.” After

this was the establishment of the Human Trafficking Secretariat (HTS), which

is managed by a thirteen-member management board. The overall goal of the

Secretariat is “to provide sensitisation to the public, reduce overall instances of

trafficking and create a conducive environment for the acceleration of national

development by eliminating TIP, which serves to impede development gains”

(Human Trafficking Secretariat, 2017).

Additional programmes include the establishment of the Anti-Human

Trafficking Unit (AHTU) of the Ghana Police Service, which “conducts

investigations into allegations of human trafficking and seeks to prosecute

offenders,” as well as the establishment of the Anti-Human Smuggling and

Trafficking in Persons Unit (AHSTIP) of the Ghana Immigration Service, “an

operational unit set up to investigate and arrest human trafficking and

smuggling offenders, while also building the capacity of immigration officials

to detect cases of trafficking and smuggling” (GIS, 2020).

In the year 2015, the Government of Ghana and the United States of

America signed up the Child Protection Compact (CPC) Partnership, “a four-

year joint initiative aimed at addressing child trafficking in Ghana by

strengthening the government’s capacity to identify child trafficking cases, care

for and reintegrate victims, effectively investigate and prosecute traffickers, and

220
prevent trafficking from occurring” (Westat 2016 Baseline Assessment of the

Child Protection Compact Partnership). In the same year, the Human

Trafficking Prohibition Regulations were adopted as an approach to facilitate

the successful execution of the Human Trafficking Act.

Also in November 2016, Ghana and La Cote d’Ivoire entered into an

agreement to create an official base of collaboration between the two countries

in the combat against ‘cross-border child trafficking and the Worst Forms of

Child Labour (WFCL).’ The GoG has also improved its efforts to meet the bare

minimum requirements as stipulated in the United States Trafficking Victims

Protection Act (TVPA) (2000). Recent measures include supporting efforts to

increase criminal prosecutions as illustrated by two human trafficking

convictions at the beginning of 2017; and the donation of vehicles to the police

Anti-Human Trafficking Unit to provide support and ease some of their

logistical challenges, to more effectively aid their work; additionally, as a

measure to provide enhanced care and support to victims, an equipped facility

has been designated as a victims shelter.

Again, Ghana has initiated policies geared toward combating modern

slavery. In 2000, the government signed an MoU with the ILO “to eliminate

child labour by strengthening national capacities for addressing the problem.

Between 2003 and 2006, Ghana participated in the West African Cocoa and

Commercial Agriculture Programme to combat hazardous and exploitative

child labour (WACAP).” WACAP was established to minimise and uproot

hazardous child labour in the cocoa and other agricultural sub-sectors in Ghana,

Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, and Nigeria. The project was funded by

ILO/IPEC and the United States Department of Labour.

221
 In 2017, the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection, with

support from UNICEF developed “a five-year national plan of action for the

elimination of human trafficking.” The aim was to eliminate or drastically

lessen the menace of human trafficking, increase care to victims and enhance

perpetrator accountability. The ministry consulted and teamed up with other

institutions and organisations such as the Employment and Labour Ministry, the

Fisheries and Aquaculture Development Ministry, Social Welfare Department,

Ghana Police and Immigration Services, UNICEF, and the Human Trafficking

Secretariat.

One limitation I find with the ‘National Plan of Action’ is that the

Gender Ministry does not consider the influential position of religious leaders

in the community. There is no reference to religious leaders strengthening

“Ghana’s capabilities along with the holistic ‘4 P’s’” (i.e., prevention,

protection, prosecution, and partnership). Meanwhile, religious leaders are

better positioned to increase consciousness and promote a deep understanding

of dignity, liberty, and trafficking issues. If the provision of improved care and

security to victims is the collective duty of vital groups and shareholders, then

religious bodies and leaders cannot be left out in this journey. By virtue of their

vocation, men and women of God can draw on sacred texts to provide

psychological support to victims in rehabilitation.

In spite of these efforts, corporate Ghana has to set out specific ways to

address the idiosyncratic challenges that the citizens and residents face. The

majority of Ghanaian firms have neither instituted internal systems to mitigate

modern slavery, nor do they report on modern slavery across their value chain.

For these issues to be so scant despite many corporate social responsibility

222
discussions, it is clear that corporate Ghana is yet to address the main social

problems that affect its internal and external stakeholders.

Domestic Violence and Victims Support Unit (DOVVSU)

DOVVSU of the Ghana Police Service was instituted in October 1998

as a specialised unit in response to the swelling number of reported cases of

abuse and violence against women and children. The legal frameworks which

inform and guide the Unit include the 1992 Constitution of Ghana; the Criminal

Offences Act (Act 29) 1960; the Criminal Code (Amended) Act, 1998 (Act

554); the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560); the Juvenile Justice Act, 2003 (Act

653); and the Domestic Violence Act, 2007(Act 732). The overall vision of

DOVVSU is to “create an environment where domestic violence and other

forms of abuse would be freely reported and to collaborate with stakeholders to

provide coordinated timely responses to victims.” It also has the mission “to

prevent, protect, apprehend and prosecute perpetrators of domestic violence and

child abuse.” In terms of functions, DOVVSU seeks to:

(a) protect the rights of the vulnerable against all forms of abuse be it
physical, sexual, emotional, socio-economic, or harmful cultural pract-
ices; (b) establish an effective database for crime detection, prevention
and prosecution; (c) treat victims/complainants and their families with
respect and courtesy; (d) professionally take statements; (e) provide
victims with information on their cases as well as details of the
investigations; (f) provide advice on crime prevention at homes, in
schools, churches and markets. The Unit also refers victims for medical
services and specialized help to clinical psychologists; social workers
from the Department of Social Welfare and counsellors attached to the
Unit. DOVVSU in addition is expected to collaborate with NGOs and
other civil society organizations that may be able to aid victims in need
of necessary support services (Ghana Police Service, 2017).
Although not explicitly stated in their mission and vision statements,

modern slavery (i.e., human trafficking, child labour, and exploitation, etc)

constitutes an inherent context for the operations of DOVVSU. Hence,

223
DOVVSU counts as one of the governmental departments for addressing

modern slavery. It partners with other agencies to meet the needs of survivors

of abuse through the building of support networks for an effective protection

system.

Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ)

CHRAJ is a human rights institution in Ghana authorised under chapter 18 of

the 1992 Constitution to examine grievances of essential rights and freedoms of

all persons in Ghana. It serves as an ombudsman and an anti-corruption agency

of the country. CHRAJ is in all the regional capitals of the country, and it has

over one hundred district offices throughout the country.

It is entrusted with the authority, among others, “to investigate

complaints of violations of fundamental rights and freedoms, carry out special

investigations into systemic human rights abuses, and investigate any other

human rights violations brought to the Commission’s attention.” CHRAJ also

educates the community on their human rights and “how and where persons

whose rights have been violated could seek redress” (CHRAJ, 2022). Any

individual, group of people or organisation can lodge a complaint with the

CHRAJ. An individual is permitted to petition the institution in the event where

their human rights are violated, or they are denied the enjoyment of a right to

which they are entitled” (CHRAJ, 2022).

Roles of religious bodies in combating modern slavery

In August 2021, Ghana hosted African faith leaders for the first African

declaration against modern slavery. This joint action signifies a pan-African

alliance of ethical leaders to confront an inequality that affects more than 40

224
million people worldwide. The Declaration ratification was facilitated by the

Global Freedom Network, the faith wing of the international human rights group

Walk Free which is dedicated to hastening the end of modern slavery. It was the

eighth adoption since 2014 when Pope Francis and Grand Ayatollah

Mohammad Taqi al-Modarresi united other faith leaders from many of the

world’s great religions in asserting that contemporary slavery must be

eliminated.

In the words of Sheikh Armiyawo Shaibu, the representative for

Ghana’s national chief Imam, “faith leaders have a very special position in

Ghanaian society.” He underscored that religious leaders are uniquely placed to

help identify and support victims by putting them in touch with professionals

who can help track down the perpetrators. I agree with Sheikh Armiyawo that

faith leaders can perceive manifestations in people that would elude others.

Again, faith leaders appreciate what poverty and harassment can do to men,

women and children. Hence, faith leaders should begin to exploit their unique

position in society to detect and challenge instances of modern slavery in their

societies. This is especially so in Ghana, where faith is embedded in

communities and the prevalence of modern slavery is high.

Faith leaders can make impacts where government and businesses

cannot. Thus, religious leaders in Ghana should work as community leaders to

demand for improved legal reforms and to provide moral guidance and

education in their congregations. Despite the signing event, many religious

leaders in the rural areas are either not aware or equipped with training and

resources to help the fight in their communities.

225
 A subsidiary contribution of faith leaders towards the eradication of

modern slavery is through the “Faith for Freedom app,” a mobile software was

developed in collaboration with a panel of faith leaders to create an information

bridge between those who may witness human trafficking and those in authority

who can take action. Faith leaders who are aware of the app can use it to access

applied guidance on how to recognise, evaluate and take action on cases of

modern slavery, and how to team up with congregations on this topic.

Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and modern slavery

The upsetting prevalence of modern forms of slavery constitutes a great problem

for every citizen of the country. Hence, Non-Governmental Organizations

(NGOs) have devised some measures to root out the problem.

NGOs team up with governmental institutions such as the Police Service

and DOVVSU to embark on rescue operations to reintegrate trafficked children

with their families. These organisations have devoted effort to exposing modern

slavery, educating the populace, rescuing victims, and prosecuting perpetrators

of modern slavery. These include ActionAid Ghana, End Modern Slavery

(EMS), Engage Now Africa (ENA) In a recent media report, a team from ENA

together with DOVVSU, the Ghana Police Service, and the Department of

Social Welfare rescued fourteen (14) children from trafficking and reunited with

their families. The operation was carried out in the Eastern and Greater Accra

Regions

In the year 2018, ActionAid Ghana held a workshop for three districts

in the Northern and Savannah Regions to improve the knowledge of individuals

and communities on enslavement practices so they can act to stop such practices

and eradicate the involvement of child labour in agriculture plantations under

226
circumstances of servitude. The awareness creation of these NGOs reveals that

modern slavery combat requires the help of everyone, especially, those in the

recruitment communities.

In all, the ‘exegesis’ of the contemporary Ghanaian context reveals clear

legislations against both direct and indirect forms of slavery. There are

definitions and laws concerning child labour and child rights as well as various

institutions for controlling and denouncing abuses.

Appropriation of Philem in Ghanaian Christian households

Contemporary Ghanaian Christian parents do experience ‘the Philemon

dilemma’ in their household or business enterprises. A Christian parent may

sometimes feel that he/she is not profiting from the partnership or the maid is

not working as expected despite all the care and provisions provided to him/her.

One parent indicated, “I provide the maid basic need; I pay her more than she

deserves and provides her with other numerous incentives and privileges.

However, the maid’s service is lacking. She sleeps on comfortable beds and eats

good food, yet she refuses to help me wholeheartedly. She is always murmuring

and complaining to outsiders that I overwork her. Meanwhile, it is the basic

chores we ask her to do. I am really confused. If she continues like this and does

not change, I will have no option but to send her back to the village.”

The Christian parent’s challenge is that one can have a genuine reason

for showing kindness, sensitivity, and love towards the maid, yet the maid

would not recognize it or intentionally decide to take advantage of the

master/mistress’ Christian generosity. What option is left to Philemon if the

slave refuses to play his part or roles as expected? This was the response from

another Christian parent: “Paul did not literary ask Philemon to become ‘a slave’

227
to his own slave’” and so if Onesimus forgets his place in the household and

becomes arrogant, disrespectful or lazy, he must be corrected accordingly.

However, she added, “reverting troublesome maids and fictive children who are

not ready to serve back to their former condition is not against Christian values.

No one goes into a lose-win venture; hence masters are justified to sack lazy

maidservants.”

Indeed, the household instructions in the Deutero-Pauline letters require

both masters and slaves to do something for the common interest of each party.

More importantly, how do maids or fictive children who work as maids

reconcile their status or situation in the household of their masters or fictive

homes with their understanding that ‘they also are children of God’? The

researcher adopted interviews as the tool for gathering information about how

Christians in the Ghanaian contexts appropriate Philem vis-à-vis four important

labels that were deduced from the organic reading of the text: (a) welfare and

educational opportunities of maids/fictive children (b) clemency for and

reconciliation with fictive children and maids in complex situations; (c) their

spirituality and fellowship; (d) freedom and dignity of maids and fictive

children in the Ghanaian Christian households. Fictive children, maids, and

employees of Christian figures were also interviewed to know their impressions

about how their masters used the text of Philem. The following open-ended

questions were used to find out how Christian parents/employers and

maids/employees appropriate Philem in the household or workplace:

a) Are there some adjustment measures in your household or business

activity that ensure/promote the welfare and education of the maids or

fictive children? If yes, what ethical challenges do such adjustments

228
 pose to your foremost reason for adopting or employing the fictive child

or maid? Do you think the people you are serving prioritise your material

and educational welfare? (The last one was directed to the fictive

child/maid/labourer)

b) How do you react to the mistakes, wrong deeds, or mischievousness of

a fictive child or maid as a Christian parent or business person? How do

you make peace with yourself, the maid, and God? How are/were you

treated in a problematic situation believed to have been orchestrated by

your own misdeed or wrongdoing? (The last one was directed to the

fictive child/maid/labourer).

c) Is the spirituality of maids/fictive children emphasized and promoted in

your household/enterprise? Do you see your spirituality taken into

consideration by your fictive parent/Christian employer in this

household? (The second question was directed to the fictive

child/maid/labourer)

d) Do you have the feeling your freedom and dignity are respected or

trampled upon by the Christian fictive parent or employer? (This was

directed to the fictive child/maid/labourer)

Welfare and educational opportunities for maids/fictive children

Some Christian parents disclosed to the researcher that the manifest

reason for adopting fictive children from their extended family was to offer a

supportive atmosphere for such less privileged children to get education, socials

skills and values to improve their conditions. The excerpt below shows the

emphasis one of such Christian parents puts on the education and empowerment

of the fictive child or maid.

229
 I brought my sister’s daughter from the village to stay with me so that
she could get better educational training to maximise her chances of
succeeding in life. Because of their deprived condition, I felt I should
help raise at least one of her children. The girl was in stage three at the
time I brought her to stay with me. Today, she has completed JHS and
is ready to continue with her secondary education.

Another Christian parent recounted that she adopted an extended family

member to the city not because she really needed assistance with domestic

activities in the household. Instead, she disclosed, “I considered that when she

is with me in the city, I can find her a trade to learn instead of staying in the

village and not doing anything meaningful.” This respondent said she was able

to find the fictive child hairdressing trade to learn. Again, a respondent told me

that he had four children in the house: two were biological, and the other two

were fictive or adopted children from the immediate extended family. He

indicated that the adopted children were not reduced to house servants: “I

ensured that they had equal educational opportunities and labour in the

household with my biological children. For example, every person was

responsible for washing his/her own clothes and dishes; I provided equally for

their educational, emotional and physical needs with equity and equality.”

However, others also indicated that regarding house helps, maids, and

workers, their original reason for bringing them into the household was for them

to work or complement the labour force in the household as captured in the

given response below:

I started a provision store two years ago [in our residential area] but my
household duties and office duties made it difficult for me to balance my
time. There were several times I had to close the store because I was not
available; I was either at Church, at work or in the house. The pressure
became too much for me. I, therefore, decided to go in for a small girl
from the village to assist me when am not around. With the help of a
church member, I got a 13year old girl from her hometown to come and
stay with me. Even though I desperately needed her service at the

230
 provision store most of the time, I had to think of her education and
future so I put her in a nearby school. But I made it clear to her that she
will sit at the store after school and on every weekend.

Again, a Christian Cocoa plantation owner responded to the question

from traditional practice in his household and farming practices. This man owns

about 40acres of cocoa plantation with fifteen (15) contractual labourers. Seven

of the labourers have been working for the man for the past nine years. I inquired

from the man what has sustained the master-servant relationship on his

plantation over decades. Here is what he had to say:

First of all, I try my best to treat my labourers as human beings like

myself, created in the image of God. I accord them much respect and I
ask my wife and children to do the same. The fact is, I need them
probably more than they need me, because if they wake up one day and
leave, I alone cannot work on the various cocoa plantations I own. My
farming will collapse and all the loans I have secured would put me into
big trouble. Thus, I don’t deal with them strictly based on the contract.
For instance, I remember a fourteen (14) year old boy from Burkina Faso
who came along with his countrymen to work as labourers but looking
at the age of the boy, I imagined whether I would be okay for allowing
my son to be toiling on the cocoa farm at such an age. I did not turn him
off; instead, I spoke with his brothers that I want to put him into school
and allow him to perform minor tasks in the house and on the farm. At
the end of every year, I also organize a get together for my household
and allow the labourers to invite their friends from other villages for a
celebration. Normally, it is on such occasions that I pay their annual
wages and express my appreciation to them. Thus, there is always
something to look forward to at the end of the year, if you’re my
labourer. The usual challenge I encounter is dealing with those workers
who seem to be taking advantage of the situation.

He added, if Christians are labourers of Jesus, then we must treat our

own physical labourers well so that Jesus would also bless us.” He concluded

that the secret to his prosperity in cocoa farming is that he is tender, just, fair

and considerate towards his labourers. Wrong manipulation and coercion are

options but certainly not the best ones when dealing with those upon whom your

business’s success depends. When asked about the annual salary of a labourer,

he said that mature and experienced labourers are given 1,800 GH Cedis

231
annually whilst new ones are paid 1,600 GH Cedis. According to him, he

provides them with shelter, food and working tools but not hospital bills.

Besides that, they occasionally get free periods to take up private daily contracts

from other people in the village.

Another cocoa plantation owner frankly told me about his principles for

dealing with farm labourers. The man owns about 25acres of cocoa farms

scattered across different villages. Apparently, he inherited most of the farms

from his father, but he has expanded the plantation. He hires contractual

labourers who come from Burkina, Togo, Benin and the Northern part of Ghana.

Unlike the other farmer, the annual rate he pays each worker is GH1,500 Cedis

together with shelter, food and Health Insurance Card. He revealed that he was

a strict type of master. The labourers are fond of giving excuses for illnesses, so

regular excuses given affect one’s annual salary. He also indicated that he could

terminate one’s contract upon realising that the labourers are lazy and full of

excuses. In another instance, he mentioned that he caused the arrest of two

labourers who stole a bag of cocoa. After serving their jail terms, they came

back to complete their contracts for payment. Even though he is a Christian,

business is less about Christianity because “if you become soft with your

employees, they will collapse your many years of hardworking.” Relating his

views to the situation in Philem, the Christian cocoa farmer said that he would

have put Christianity aside and showed Onesimus his rightful place. “The slave

should pay for his wrong deeds to serve as a deterrent to others. For him,

accepting the slave back without punishing him would not put fear in them, and

they would take you for granted because you’re soft, the Christian man added.”

When asked whether he is exploiting the labourers, he answered negation. This

232
is a standard practice in many cocoa planting villages, and the workers

themselves need employment because, within a space of about five years, they

can accumulate a reasonable sum of money to return to their country. It is

considered a reciprocated transaction: ‘they work for us and we pay them the

agreed fee, provide them food, shelter and freedom to take up some daily

contracts.’

In varying respects, most Christian parents provide room for the

advancement of their maids/fictive children or employees. Some consider profit

beyond the progress or welfare of the servant, but others too consider the worth

of the person before anything else. Either way, there are consequences on the

Christianity of the Christian parent. Therefore, let us consider the views of

fictive children and maids/workers in Christian households.

While fictive children’s responses establish that their educational needs

are provided in the Christian home, some complained about discriminatory

treatments. This was peculiar to those who double as domestic servants. One

of them said:

There is no single day that I woke myself up! I could sleep like a log
because of the heavy workload. The house had upper and downstairs
rooms. They owned two personal cars which they used every day. A
casual worker could come once a week to help wash clothes, but the
household chores were more than I could bear!

A 17year SHS student who was a foster child in a Christian household-related

her traumatising experience:

My [adopted] parents refused to give me pocket money to school for two

weeks, as my punishment for failing to sweep the compound. Actually,
I was very exhausted the previous day’s work and I couldn’t wake up
early to do all the all chores before going to school. In addition, I was
starved during school hours. So, I took a bowl from the house for
SCHOOL FEEDING meals. That one too, when my [foster] mom
discovered the bowl in my school bag, she condemned me for stealing.

233
 She beat me mercilessly and stepped on my stomach severally with her
heavy legs.

When I asked about her status in the household, the respondent told me she has

an ambiguous status in the household since she adopted a child but sees herself

to be more of a maid in the household. Another fictive child also recounted her

challenging experience as depicted below:

I live with a pastor’s wife. She asked [my mother] that she should allow
me to come and live with her in Accra and she would send me to school.
It was a little difficult because she has a provision store, so immediately
after school, I went to the store and opened it for business. I usually close
from school at 1:30 p.m., go to the store to sell till 4 p.m. then go to the
house to cook supper which will be ready by 7 p.m. After cooking, I go
to wash the dishes then go to remove all the dirty clothes in the house
and wash. By 10 p.m. I would be finished with the washing… [then] I
have to make ice cream and ice water ready for the next day’s sale. After
doing all these I become drained so I do not get time to study. [16yr girl:
personal interview, 2020]

In a study conducted by Kuyini et al. (2009), abusive treatment of orphans

emerged as a frequent theme. Two of the interviewees who were double orphan

boys living with their uncles were distinctive in assessing their situations

unfavourably with the Christian parents’ genetic children:

My friends opened the term last month, but I am failing to go because I

do not have my provisions and my uncle told me just to wait a bit. […]
Honestly speaking, the treatment that a fostered child receives is
different from biological children. […] In most instances I have to raise
my own money for transport because my guardian only gives me money
for soap and other provisions. [18y boy: Kuyini et. al. (2009, p. 19)]

My uncle is very cruel to me. […] He did not want me to stay in his
house and complete some work for him with school time. Meanwhile,
his own children attend school regularly. They have their real father who
provides for them so they lack nothing. [14yr boy: Kuyini et. al. (2009,
p. 19)]

The few instances cited above reveal some challenges such as

deprivation, neglect and verbal abuse faced by fictive children in a Christian

environment. Another respondent from the cocoa farming community-related

234
his experience with a Christian cocoa plantation owner who hires only minors

to avoid paying adult labourer’s rate. The farmer is noted for preying on hungry

and needy or desperate teens who need money to support themselves in their

education. According to the respondent, he was once a victim of the man’s cruel

treatment. Together with two JSS mates, they were employed to go and weed at

the man’s cocoa farm for a daily wage. They used three weekends to complete

the work, yet they were paid two days’ wages. According to the interviewee,

everybody in the community perceives the man as a wicked and exploitative

person. People work for him at their own risk; many people turn down his job

offers because of what others say about him.

Another worker of a Christian household described his Christian

employer, an elder of a Church, as the ideal type of a cocoa plantation employer.

The interviewee confessed that he had worked on different plantations of

Christian personalities, but this one is entirely different. He said, “My master

treats us with genuine respect, patience, honesty, kindness and sacrifices.

Sometimes, he knows we are lying to him about why a job was not completed

on time, but he overlooks petty stubbornness and pursues those things that

would unite us with him to achieve our set goals for the month. When one of us

is unwell, our master becomes so sad and sorry for the person not because of

the labour he had lost but the pain the employee would be going through. He

has never allowed any of us to pay his own hospital bill nor deducted those days

from one’s payment. Again, he knows some of us are in this situation not by a

simple choice. So, he encourages us to develop a saving habit and be focused in

life so that we do not work as labourers throughout our lives. He often

encourages the most mature among to think of marrying. Every Sunday, the

235
wife and grown-up girls prepare fufu and good soup for us to enjoy. Although

he is a committed member of Pentecost, the master does not force on us his

religious beliefs and practices. Among his twelve (12) labourers, only five (5)

of us attend church with him; some attend different churches; others too do not

attend at all. “Our master has not got many acres of cocoa land as compared to

other masters in the villages I have worked, but I can tell you he harvests more

cocoa than many of those people with vast plantations. It is because” the

interviewee argued, “his labourers work from the heart; they give off their best

whether the master is present or absent on the farms.” He added that he had

already stayed with the man for four (4) years. There is no restriction on

movement; we can visit colleagues on other plantations. This planter disclosed

to the researcher that he and his colleagues have made it their goal to help the

master expand his plantation for more harvest.

The data reveals that some maids and fictive children are fortunate to

find themselves in a master-servant relationship where their interests and

welfare are prioritised. Their personal growth and education are given needed

attention by the Christian parent. Some have personally experienced

tremendous improvement in their condition whilst others have received support

to complete their formal educations. On the other hand, some fictive parents

have had terrible experiences with maids or workers who are having bad

character. This has caused many Christian parents to be changing maids or

fictive children regularly. Some maids/fictive children have experienced

various forms of abuse from their caregivers or employers. It cannot be over-

emphasised that all the negative experiences from deprivation, neglect and

verbal abuse affect the child’s emotional and psychological development.

236
Clemency and reconciliation in Christian households

This question sought to discover how Christian parents exercise

clemency towards their maid or fictive children in scandalous or controversial

situations that put one’s Christianity to a hard test. The first Christian parent

said, “my previous maid was troublesome; she was lazy and disrespectful, she

was never ready to comply with simple instructions.” Many of them are not used

to tough city life. You would have to wake up as early as 4 am and assist me to

bake bread and distribute them before 6:30 am, but many of these workers

cannot stand it. According to the same respondent, she had good intentions to

help the maid acquire a hair-dressing trade. She put the maid into a trade to

learn, but immediately afterwards, her attitude towards her primary duty in the

house changed: “the maid would not want to do any house chore duties again –

the usual cleaning, washing and cooking. However, the same maid would go to

her madam’s house to perform the same tasks she would not do in our house.

She would leave Saturday and return Sunday evening. “I tolerated the headache

for six (6) months, but subsequently, I could not take it anymore; I sent her back

to the village for my peace of mind.”

The second Christian parent narrated his experience with a fictive child

he adopted at a tender age from the extended family. He enrolled her into

University Practice school at Class One. “One day,” the respondent recounted

with sad emotions, “I was there when this girl came to me to tell me that she

wants to go back to her mother; she preferred to stay with the mother than to be

here with me.” At this time, the respondent’s biological child was just around

3years old. Every effort to convince the suddenly moody Class Five girl to stay

did not yield a good result; she refused the counsel of her class teachers and

237
wife and colleagues. Finally, the uncle returned her biological mother to the

village, but after four months with her mother, the girl changed her mind to go

back to the uncle because the two contexts were utterly different. According to

the respondent, it was difficult for him and the wife to take the girl back because

they felt the little girl would cause them trouble again. What he said was that

“we gave consideration to the future of the girl and had to accept her back into

the household once more.”

The third Christian respondent said that she pardoned the maid on a

couple of occasions when she discovered that the boy was pilfering money from

the store. The Christian mother recounted: “The boy would steal the money and

hide them in unsuspected places, and when he goes to school, he will buy food

and sweets for his friends. I talked to him, withdrew certain privileges,

reprimanded him and even resorted to physical punishment, yet he would not

stop this bad habit. At some point, I even suspected that it was the doing of evil

spirits or witches in the village who does not want him to succeed. I was really

confused; so, I decided to send him back because I could not allow a stranger

from nowhere to collapse my business” Another reason she offered was the fear

that the boy would have a bad influence on her children that is why she sent the

boy back to the village and refused to accept the routine apology rendered by

the boy’s parents.

Another respondent from Group A narrated that she brought a local girl

from the village to support housework, yet anytime she assigned tasks (washing,

cleaning, errands,) the girl becomes moody and starts giving attitudes,

“meanwhile it was because I needed help that is why I came in for you.”

According to the fictive parent, the housemaid makes an unnecessary

238
comparison with the other children, refusing to notice that they are not the same.

She had problems helping me wash the dirty dresses of my children and husband

and cleaning bowls after dining. The maid once raised the issue of partial

treatment during a family meeting but the fictive mother told her that each

person in the house must perform so that comparison would not help. The

mother explained, “I am the one providing food, paying utilities and school fees,

and footing all other bills, but I have not complained, so why should you too

complain when you’re playing your assigned duties?” After she completed JHS,

I realized her behaviour had changed entirely, so I gave her the option to return

to her parents if that is what she wished rather than staying here and feeling that

she is a ‘house slave.’

The same question was rephrased to solicit the views or experiences of

fictive children and maids on the theme of forgiveness and gentle response when

they go wrong things in the household. The first maid interviewed pointed out

that she constantly experiences harsh rebukes before forgiveness. For example,

she mistakenly broke a mug, but her fictive mother insulted her that she is a

careless and wicked person. The second respondent, a fictive child, said that any

little incidence or mistake in the house, her fictive parents would call the mother

in the village to report and exaggerate things. They have threatened to send her

back to the village, but she has been begging them not to. She also recounted

another experience. He was sent to go and convert coins into notes. In a

circumstance the girl could still not fathom it up to today, the coins were short

by 200cedis [Old currency, the year 2000). The mother concluded she has stolen

the money and threatened to burn her hands. “She tied my hands together,

239
poured kerosene on it, and nearly lighted a fire to it, had it not been a neighbour

who came to my rescue,” the respondent added.

Another local maid said added, “as for me, they always insult me as a

useless and good for nothing person, so insult has become a normal thing to me;

whatever I do, they will rain insults on me.” She also revealed that the fictive

mother never appreciates her works. The next fictive child also narrated his

experience regarding forgiveness in these words: “One day after school, I

followed friends to watch a play and so I returned home late, around 7 pm. My

fictive parents refused to allow me to enter the house; he dismissed me to return

to where I had been since I closed school. I knew I was at fault, but she did not

even listen to my explanation. Without food, I slept outside for the whole night;

I will never forget that treatment.”

A third respondent, a labourer in a cocoa plantation village, related an

incident between him and his former Christian master. He was bonded to work

as a labourer on the farms of a work Christian cocoa farmer. In the traditional

arrangement, the labourer could not work for any other person or travel without

the master’s approval. However, six (6) months into their contract, the

labourer’s biological father passed away in his hometown of Burkina Faso. This

sad incident caused the labourer to request permission to attend the father’s

funeral at his hometown, but unfortunately, the date of the burial ceremony

coincided with vital farm activities – plugging, gathering, and cracking of cocoa

pods. The master did not grant him leave to go home, but he couldn’t comply

with the master’s order. Considering the value attached to funeral traditions

among his cultural folks, the respondent decided to attend the funeral. He spent

eight (8) days before returning to the master. The master got furious with him.

240
The labourer begged the master and tried to explain things to him but then his

master refused to take him back. According to the employee, he invited two

elderly members of the village to intercede for him; however, the master did not

accept their plea. Instead, the master terminated the contract without giving him

the wages for the six months he had worked before he left for the funeral.

Relating his personal experience to the situation of Onesimus in Philem, the

labourer wondered whether Onesimus left without leave of absence because his

unsympathetic master refused to allow him to attend to the urgent private issue.

The fourth maid said that the Christian parents warned her never to talk

back when speaking to her on any issue. “But on two tensed occasions,” she

continued,” mummy was saying things to me that were untrue. I could not

control my anger and talked back to her that what she was saying was not what

actually happened. She took offence, insulted me mercilessly and, on top of it,

asked me to pack and leave her house. I did not have anywhere to pack, so I told

her to send me back to my parents because she came to pick me up. The

following day, I went to Daddy to convey my apology to mummy. All that I

was told was, ‘get your things ready, we are taking you back to the village’, and

indeed they sent me to my parents.” The fourth respondent indicated that he was

very troublesome, both at home and at school. He once fought and injured a

classmate; the boy was hospitalised. School authorities invited the guardians to

school. He added, “both parents and teachers went to the hospital to see the boy;

and to take care of the bills. I was so scared about what they would do to me

when I return home. However, when I got home, they did not punish me as I

expected; instead, I was advised not to engage in such violent behaviour again.

241
This made a great impression on me, and their attitude towards me in that

circumstance remains my number one experience of true forgiveness and love.”

Another maid relates that she works at the store of a Christian woman.

The woman is very kind towards her and understands her. Sometimes when she

fails to attend work on time or makes a mistake at the workplace, the woman

does not rebuke her in the presence of customers; she would wait until everyone

is gone then she would advise her on what happened. According to her, the mum

has a saying that ‘everyone makes a mistake so there is no need to be so mad at

the mistake of others.’ She added, ‘that woman taught me the power of

forgiveness and gentle rebuke; it inspires one to give off the best.

The last maid interviewed on this question or theme revealed that his

fictive parents are very strict and firm towards everyone in the household; they

do not treat anyone special. If you do the wrong thing, he will correct you in the

same way he corrects his biological children’s mistakes. They would punish you

today and relate to you the following day as if nothing happened the previous

day. That side of them makes me not feel odd when I am being punished or

corrected. They never make certain extreme utterances to me; they rather teach

us to be considerate in our choice of words when angry. They owe many

businesses in the city and have many workers. The workers hardly say bad

things about Mummy and Daddy.

From their response, I notice that some fictive children variously

experienced the Christian touch their Christian parents reacted to their faults

and failings in character. These maids and fictive children experienced the

virtue of love, forgiveness and acceptance in difficult moments of their lives

when they thought they would be punished severely or be thrown out of the

242
house. On the other extreme, some fictive children suffered spontaneous

reactions from their caregivers or employers in situations where the subordinate

was wrong.

Spirituality of maids/fictive children/labourers

This question sought to establish how the spiritual welfare of the fictive

or maid/worker is emphasised by the Christian parent or employer. The first

respondent, a Christian mother, expressed the opinion that regular church

attendance and activities have failed to transform the worrisome attitudes of

their twenty-six-year-old maid. She described the moral and spiritual life of the

housemaid as very worse. The maid does not stay at home on weekends; she

leaves the house to unpermitted places for ‘chilling’ and returns home on

Sunday afternoon. Every effort to get her to change from that lifestyle has failed.

However, she performs her primary duties effectively, and so the Christian

parent looked not too bothered. “Whether she will attend church regularly is her

own decision,” the Christian parent added. They considered her mature enough

to take on certain responsibilities in her own life. The respondent jokingly said,

“even if the Pope comes here to advise her to change, I am not sure this lady

would not listen.”

According to the second Christian parent interviewed, there is a normal

incidence of criminal activities in their residential area. Those thieves monitor

when the environment is quiet before embarking on their criminal operations.

Thieves once broke into their house when everybody had left for Church

service. Thus, the family has decided that there should be at least one person at

home anytime the household leaves for church activity or an outdoor event. In

this situation, she usually asks the fictive child to stay behind and watch over

243
the house. For the safety of the house, the spiritual growth or needs of the child

is sacrificed. The Christian parent added that it was a challenging and

controversial choice to which there was no other way.

Another respondent also mentioned the difficult decision she had to

make regarding the spiritual life of a store assistant she works with. The shop

assistant is preoccupied with various church activities. He attends church

programs thrice a week (i.e., youth meeting every Tuesday; music rehearsal

every Saturday at 4 pm; and a prayer meeting every Thursday at 4 pm). Each of

these weekly programs usually lasts for 3hours, and so he returns home after

8:30 pm. That puts much pressure on the Christian employer at the store because

she is often left alone to attend to numerous customers. Initially, she did not

want to interfere in his religious activities because he was very committed and

hardworking. However, when matters worsened because the store’s pressure

increased, the Christian employer asked the assistant to stop the weekly

meetings to focus on his core duties. According to her, she felt like she was

interfering with the spiritual development of her employee.

The sixth respondent indicated that he prioritises the spiritual needs of

every child in the household just as their physical and emotional welfare. He

ensures that all the children are provided with dresses, footwear, bibles and

other items they need for church services. He encourages them to participate in

Sunday school and other church activities. Again, he has established that no

child stays home on Sundays. During the weekdays, the house tradition is ‘no

Bible Study, no Breakfast.”

Another thing he does is that he assigns bible readings and allocates

responsibility evenly to everyone. There is no discrimination, no excuses, no

244
shyness; everybody performs a role during family fellowships. Thus, he

concluded that the two fictive children do not feel discriminated against nor left

out in the spiritual side of the family, and there are equal opportunities for

everyone to grow his or her spirituality. Commenting on Paul’s plea to Philemon

that he should treat Onesimus as a brother, this Christian parent inferred that

Philemon should not discriminate against Onesimus because he is a slave; he

must provide him with every necessary freedom and resources for the slave’s

spirituality and welfare to improve, just like the free-born children in the

household.

In a similar breadth, a Christian Cocoa plantation owner responded that

he does not prevent Christian missionaries who visit the village from sharing

the gospel with his employed workers. Instead, he allows every group to interact

with the workers, be they Jehovah Witness, Adventists, Pentecost or members

of the newly established churches. Out of such evangelism, two of his faithful

workers converted and became Jehovah Witness members. This development

made him adjust their working times on Tuesdays and Saturdays to suit their

kingdom meeting schedules.

The last Christian parent responded that their household has a tradition

where everyone in the house observes a fast till mid-day every Sunday morning.

Nobody goes to the kitchen to cook or serve another person before the forenoon

Church service. Moreover, no one is excluded except the very young children.

The fictive child brought from the village to keep the store is encouraged to

participate. According to her, the enthusiasm with which everybody in the

house observes the fast indicates that there is a strong unity among them. On

special occasions at church, she sews a common dress for all the children to

245
make it difficult for outsiders to distinguish among them. She also added that

equal opportunity is provided for all the children to join their Sunday school

classes to go for church camps and fun games. Even though his absence puts

much pressure on her (because she would have to combine house chores with

the keeping of the store), the Christian mother indicated that the spiritual welfare

of every child under her parentage is equally essential.

There were also responses from fictive children, maids and employees

on their spiritual welfare. The first respondent indicated that her fictive mother

provides what everyone needs for Church service on Sunday. You cannot stay

in the house and refuse to go to church; whether you like it or not, you have to

attend Methodist church with her. Again, she also encourages us to read our

Bible and devotional books.

The second respondent, a maid, also indicated that she used not to

attend church before meeting a particular Christian employer. At the time, she

was just a 17-year-old secondary school graduate. The employer invited her to

church service and encouraged her to be consistent. Through that

encouragement, she gave her life to Christ. According to the respondent, what

motivated her to take her spirituality seriously was the kind of treatment her

employer gave to her. The woman is really a good Christian and mother: she is

always encouraging me to serve God well; she taught me to speak the truth, be

prayerful, and serve genuinely from the heart because God rewards people

according to the heart with which they serve. To her surprise, her employer

looked for financial support to enable her to continue her education.

Another maid revealed that she does not get the opportunity to attend

church services with her employer’s family because she has many house chores

246
to perform on weekends. From washing, and scrabbing to cooking, she becomes

more exhausted on Sundays than the ordinary days. Her entire life is

preoccupied with multiple duties; there is no time for her to attend Church.

Domestic activities start at 4A.M. when she assists the mother to prepare

breakfast and lunch for the children to take to school; it continues at the clothing

shop at Kejetia market, and they usually get back home late. She is not permitted

to leave the workplace or postpone the house duties for any private event, be it

religious or social.

Another fictive child disclosed to me that she is taken to church by her

fictive parents, but she does not get the opportunity to sit with her colleagues at

the Junior Youth (JY) or participate in their service because her mum frequently

requests her to come and look after the little siblings. Sometimes, she can be

called out of the JY room about ten times during their service to attend to a

crying daughter or carry the dozing boy at her back. These distractions cause

her to miss many teachings vital to her spiritual growth. The same fictive child

disclosed that during festive occasions like First Fruits or drama Sunday, the

fictive mother refuses to give her items to participate in the activities effectively.

Meanwhile, the biological daughter is provided with everything she would need

for the same event at Church. She also indicated that she only has two clothes

for church service, yet the little sister, the biological one, is bought or sewn new

dresses regularly. These instances largely affected her understanding of the

themes such as God’s equal love for all people, irrespective of status and

background. Without further probing, this respondent revealed that some fictive

children or maids are taken to Church simply because their services would be

247
needed. Their presence at church is to serve, run errands for the parents or take

care of their minor children.

The last respondent was a bonded labourer on a cocoa plantation. He

indicated that their master gives them Sundays as the traditional resting day and

other sacred days (nnabone) where one is not expected to do rigorous activities

on the land. Because there is no church on the farm, the master allows them to

use the tricycle (aboboyaa) on the farm to attend a nearby church of their choice.

According to him, the master usually prays with them during meetings; he also

shares one or two words of God with them on such occasions. This interviewee

lacked reading ability but he enjoys hearing the scripture read to him. He

indicated that one portion of church activity he enjoys most is the scripture

reading moment.

It can be established that some Christian parents and employers are very

concerned about the spiritual welfare of their maids/fictive children and

workers. They make the necessary arrangement and provide the needed

materials and encouragement to support them grow spiritually. Some parents

see it as a Christian duty to expose their workers to the knowledge of Christian

God and sacred scripture. Most of the maids, fictive children and employees

interviewed also attested that their caregivers or employers seem to show

interest in their religious life.

Freedom and dignity of fictive children/maids/labourers

The question sought to find out how fictive children/maids or employees

feel in the workplace or homes of the Christian employer or parent. Is the

environment friendly or hostile to the well-being of the maid/fictive child? The

first respondent, a 17year old fictive teenager, said the foster parents respected

248
and treated her nicely. She receives rebuke and moderate insults only when she

commits a wrong deed. The restriction on movement does apply to every child

in the house. She added, “I am not overworked; whenever I am tired, she allows

me to take some rest. I am happy staying with them. There are plenty of works

to do, yet the condition of service is better than staying in the village.”

The second respondent recalled that when he was taken to Accra to stay

with a certain woman, he was never treated equally with the biological children

in the house. Those children attended an expensive school, had personal

teachers who come to the house to teach them, and were allowed to play during

the afternoon. However, he attended public school where my parents did not

have to pay school fees, extra classes, or buy books often. He also pointed out

that he used to sweep the house and fetch water before going to school. He

complained that he usually gets to school very exhausted. On weekends, he is

made to sell mineral water at the nearby station. The foster mother said it was

the proceeds from water selling she saves to support his education. Comparing

his situation to the free, relaxed and pampered biological children in the house,

he felt like an unfortunate poor boy. He said that the same assistance the foster

parents are offering him for his education is used to blackmail and intimate him

most of the time. He sometimes felt to quit school and just work for them as

their house employee. The enduring impression in the house is that he was not

meant to be their responsibility, so he is a burden.

Another maid who was put into a hairdressing trade indicated that her

Christian mother and employer continually reminded her that she was doing her

a favour. There is also a respondent who said she performs all the ‘slave works’

in the house. She runs errands for every person in the house; even during

249
mealtime, she could be called and sent outside. These events affected her self-

understanding as being a lowly status person in the house. She wondered

rhetorically, ‘if I am the maid, should I be treated so disdainfully or be made to

feel to feel negative about my condition’? She felt that most of the ill-treatments

are deliberate things the fictive mother does to her.

The final respondent was a provision store attendant. He mentioned that

the employer respects his dignity and freedom. He is paid fairly and promptly.

The employer does not dictate unreasonable orders nor coerce him. He could

freely go to her and discuss issues that are affecting his work. The Christian

woman listens to him and does not rubbishes his suggestions on the way things

should be done at the workplace. He feels significant to the woman’s business.

It is established that some Christian parents appropriate the text to enhance the

condition of the maid/fictive child in their household. However, the experiences

of some fictive children and maids also show that there are Christian parents

who make no extra effort to incorporate them into the household fully.

Christian status or orientation does not nullify master-servant

relationships in the home and the workplace. The maid or employee of a

Christian household should not and cannot downplay her primary status as a

help. The religious practices can only improve the maids’ working conditions

but do not negate the serving roles one has been employed to perform in the

household.

Sometimes too, the very adjustments or actions taken by fictive parents

to improve the condition of the maid or fictive child make the child unavailable

when his/her service is needed urgently in the household. For some fictive

parents, the primary motive for hiring a maid or adopting a fictive child is for

250
extra labour force or a helping hand to get specific tasks completed in the

household. Hence when the child is being well catered for but refuses to give

off his/her best or is inhibited by certain factors to serve as expected, the

employer or fictive parent becomes frustrated and cheated. This aspect of the

master-slave relationship also poses a severe dilemma to some Christian

parents.

It often happens to Christian parents who put their maids into trades for

an apprenticeship or school for formal education. While at work or school, the

maid or fictive child cannot offer help on prompt. Sometimes, the time to be at

school or work conflicts with the time to perform certain chores in the house. In

some situations, the maid prioritises trade learning or schooling over his primary

duties in the household.

Another critical issue coming out is that the Christian parent should

eschew the win-lose mentality. The interest of parents should not disregard the

humanity of the maids. On the contrary, their welfare should be paramount to

the Christian parent. That is what Paul implied when he told Philemon to “treat

Onesimus like a brother, and not just a slave.” It is, therefore, unchristian for a

Christian parent to lord over the maids, overwork them, and treat them as

disposables.

The message of Paul to Philemon draws attention to the ‘boss mentality’

which often results in power-play in the household. Philemon was urged to

restrain his mastery ego over Onesimus. The message is relevant for Christian

couples, especially those wives who displace anger on the maids or overwork

them just because their utility value is ‘service.’ The maid should be given time

to ‘breathe,’ to take in some uninterrupted rest or to pursue some personal

251
ambitions. Christian couples or employers must not have the notion that they

are offering maids and employees ‘some underserving favour’ and hence use

that to abuse them.

The ‘good’ that some Christian parents are offering maids or

underprivileged children turn to be machinations for further exploitation, abuse

and domination. The Christian parent should therefore eschew the win-lose

mentality. The interest of parents should not contemptuously disregard the

humanity of the maids. On the contrary, their welfare should be paramount to

the Christian parent. That is what Paul implied when he told Philemon to “treat

Onesimus like a brother, and not just a slave.” It is, therefore, unchristian for a

Christian parent to lord over the maids, overwork them, and treat them as

disposable objects.

In almost every home, the woman or wife takes charge of the domestic

affairs – cooking, cleaning, supervision of maids, and the day-to-day running of

household activities. Maids are directly under the control or supervision of the

woman. In my interviews with a Christian couple, I established that some wives

deliberately displace their troubles and anger on maids. They use the maids as

a ‘safe outlet’ for every anger and frustration faced in their marriage. In a

separate conversation with a certain husband, the man indicated that sometimes

he feels sorry for the quantity of work the wife asks the maid to do. He said,

“This little girl is made to scrab, wash dishes, pound fufu, sell at the store, as

well as do errands for every member of the house. My wife does not see

anything wrong with burdening the little girl because she is her maid. It is

pathetic, yet wives are in charge of domestic affairs, so there is little I can do

when I am not at home.”

252
 Some Christian employers or tradesmen/women give too many tasks to

the apprentice without thinking about their welfare. For example, one Christian

parent said she took her fictive daughter to a Christian seamstress to learn

sewing. According to the respondent, the Christian friend overburdened the

daughter unreasonably just because she was her apprentice. The master “drained

every energy out of the girl. Apart from closing her at a late hour, the Madam

would give her take-home tasks unrelated to the trade the girl had come to learn.

She would not even allow my daughter a break time to find something to eat.

Eventually, I made her stop attending the apprenticeship because I felt the

woman was abusing my girl.” In such a scenario, one can clearly see a win-lose

situation in a master-apprentice partnership.

Again, some Christian employers have adopted secular and exploitative

business principles. In their bid to cut down on the cost of production and make

more profit, they underpay and mistreat their workers. Moreover, some of these

Christian figures have established their churches where they serve as pastors or

patrons. Others are into Christian charity and sponsoring priests and Christian

institutions. However, their own grassroots workers are embittered by the sort

of treatment they experience from these well-known generous figures of

society.

These top-notch Christian business people believe that they are doing

the employees a favour because these individuals would have remained

unemployed without them. Hence, they see nothing wrong with underpaying

their workers. Meanwhile, their employers are well-known Christian patrons

and philanthropists. These problematic issues of exploitation are an affront to

Christian ethics. Unfortunately, many maids and employees who find

253
themselves working for Christian parents/employers are confronted daily with

such win-lose situations.

Implications of the Dialogic Encounter Between Text and Context

An engagement between the biblical and African contexts is an essential

assumption of African biblical scholarship. Reading the Scripture is not a

disinterested exercise; it is a dialogue between text and readers in their

respective cultural contexts (Loba-Mkole, 2008). People’s context and culture

determine the way they interpret and use the text. Therefore, interpretation of

scripture is pursued to transform human society.

Ukpong (2000) entreats the critical reader “to actualize the theological

sense of the read text in today’s context so as to forge an integration between

faith and life and engender commitment to personal and societal

transformation” (Ukpong, 2000, p. 56). Most of the time, Africans view

“biblical interpretation as a living exercise that must come into actual operation

in their day-to-day experiences in life” (Anum, 2009, p. 145).

Although people’s context and culture determine how they interpret and

use the text, sometimes their contextualization and appropriation go haywire.

Therefore, it is essential to bridge the gap between distanciation and

appropriation. Against this backdrop, this section engages ‘the call to action’

which emerges from the distanciation, contextualisation and appropriation of

Philem. It invites believing community into a dispassionate ‘face to face’

dialogue capable of transforming their horizons and making them reflect their

‘true nature’ as the image and likeness of God. From their unique contexts, the

Christian parent and fictive child deduce diverse meanings from the text.

254
Nonetheless, the following suggestions may prove helpful for addressing

complexities arising from master-servant arrangements in Christian households.

Primarily, Philem communicates a categorical appeal to parents and

employers about the importance to give precedence to the welfare and

spirituality of subordinates in the home. The quality of the relationship between

Christian masters and their subordinates, to a large extent, reveals masters’

adherence to the fundamental socio-religious values of Christianity. In pursuits

of economic growth and comfortable living, the Christian master must not abuse

their domestic workers. The Philem text recognises the social norms of the 1st

Century Greco-Roman cultural environment concerning rights of ownership.

Yet, the epistle states unambiguously that the Christian master should not be

malevolent towards the slave.

In this regard, the Christian masters must always discover fitting means

of addressing the psycho-social and spiritual needs of their workers or servants,

particularly when a controversial dilemma ensues. Domestic activities and

interactions should be anchored on Christian values and principles such as

respect, forgiveness, kindness, forbearance, empathy, encouragement, gentle

rebuke and corrections, sharing or fellowshipping, and reconciliation.

Notwithstanding any conceivable defects in their character or habit, Christian

maids or fictive children should be more loved and encouraged; they must not

be traumatised and abused.

The maid or fictive child should also not lose awareness of his/her status

and role in the household as a servant whose primary duty is serving. He/she

must learn to submit to the authority of the master and mistress because diligent

service naturally attracts good treatment or appraisal.

255
 Again, most persons by nature have certain innate desires to connect

their ‘souls’ with a supernational entity to realise the purpose of life. Spiritual

activities provide strength and emotional endurance for dealing with the

challenges of life. However, data from West Indies and Ghanaian contexts

reveal that most masters disregard the otherworldly dimension of their servants

and maids. Philem makes a good case for the participation of slaves in

fellowshipping activities. This implies that Christian parents or employers

should provide a conducive environment for the less privileged maid or servant

to obtain education, skills and values essential for meaningful living.

According to Christian theology, true freedom begins with receiving the

message of Christ and allowing it to find the most authentic expression in one’s

life. The Christian instruction Paul imparted to Onesimus liberated the latter

from earthly values – manumission, wealth, power, status, etc. He was further

equipped with ‘fruits of the spirit’ to coping his earthly conditions for eventual

victory over them. By inference, maids and fictive children in Christian

households should identify and emulate the good values exhibited by Onesimus.

They should also accept Christian catechism to develop endurance, tenacity, and

positive self-concept in their existing conditions. It is their faithful commitment

to God that would produce spiritual strength for true freedom and

transformation. Severing One’s God and one’s earthly master genuinely could

yield inconceivable goodwill and progress. According to Church tradition,

Onesimus’ faithful service to both the heavenly Lord and earthly master after

his conversion led to his ultimate manumission. In other words, the service

Onesimus rendered in both the ecclesial and mundane space bought him honour

and eternal identity in Christian history and tradition. Thus, domestic maids

256
must note that the Christian principle does not nullify master-servant

relationships in the home and workplace. One should not look down on his/her

primary roles in the house. In this way, there would be a win-win situation in

the domestic partnership.

Conclusion

The chapter sought to establish the various appropriations Christian parents,

employers, fictive children, and maids/labourers make from their understanding

of Philem in their own contexts. Some Christian masters in the West Indies

Island of St. Thomas used the text to free their slaves and give them better

treatment. Rebecca Protten was a slave of Christian masters who experienced

freedom and exposure to Christian teachings at a tender age. Those that their

masters freed eventually came to use the bible as power for freedom from every

form of enslavement. However, most planters used the text to enslave their

servants better because they understood it in the light of proslavery. Similarly,

the Moravian missionaries appropriated the scriptural passages to induce

obedience and compliance from enslaved negroes. By interpreting Philem in

pro-slavery terms, they allowed negroes to be enslaved. Nevertheless, the

Moravians advocated for the spirituality, welfare and inner freedom of the

enslaved men and women.

In the Ghanaian context, it was evident that some Christian parents apply

the text to enhance the welfare, spirituality and education of their fictive

children/maids/labourers, whereas others use the same text to maltreat, exploit

and coerce their maids/fictive children/labourers as if these individuals are their

enslaved properties. Given the appropriation challenges regarding ‘the

257
Philemon dilemma,’ some pragmatic implications were deduced to guide the

master-servant relationships in Christian households and economic enterprises.

258
 CHAPTER SIX

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

This chapter recaps the entire study giving particular attention to the various

matters raised in the previous chapters. The chapter is partitioned into four sub-

sections. The first recapitulates all the chapters and the conclusion drawn in each

chapter. Section two considers the study’s major findings. The third presents

conclusions of the entire study based on the underpinning objectives; the fourth

section offers some recommendations for further research and effective

Christian practice.

Summary

The general thread which ties the separate parts of the study together is the

transformative message of Philem and how it can be used to evaluate the

complex relationships between Christian parents, employers, fictive children

and maids in the domestic context. The study set out to interpret Philem against

the backdrop of master-slave arrangements in the 1st-century Greco-Roman

community. It was developed on the desire to appreciate Paul’s innovative way

of using the gospel of Christ to address a delicate matter between a traumatised

slave and an offended Christian master.

Specifically, the study was designed to examine how Paul’s rhetoric in

Philem works to persuade Philemon, a Christian householder, to let his

Christian faith inform the way and manner he would treat his erred slave,

Onesimus. This necessitated the need to examine the historical context of the

epistle and identify the persuasive effectiveness of the text in addressing the

exigencies that occasioned its writing. The goal was to draw significant

259
implications from the letter’s message for contemporary Christian householders

in handling the complexities of keeping housemaids or fictive children.

Chapter One set the grounds for the research study. It considered the

background of the research and statement of the problem to highlight the diverse

views on the occasion of the letter and the theological uneasiness in the text

regarding Paul’s seeming endorsement of slavery. The research questions

functioned as a guide to achieving the research objectives. The tri-polar

contextual reading model of Draper (which itself shares Gadamer’s

philosophical hermeneutics) was adopted for interpreting the text of Philem.

Gadamer (1975) regards comprehension as a matter of ongoing dialogue

between oneself and one’s partner in the hermeneutical conversation about the

matter at issue. Thus, meaning is conceptualised as a subjective interplay

between text, reader and context.

The researcher’s resolve to closely study the text dialogically from the

perspective of 1st Century Greco-Roman slavery conventions and later, from

the perspective of Ghanaian Christian household involving maids and fictive

children, was influenced by Draper’s (2008) argument that “the context of the

text and the context of the reader are the two decisive elements in the production

of meaning” (p.25). Thus, interpretation of the bible is undertaken to actualise

the meaning of a text for personal and societal transformation. The chapter also

explored scholarly interpretations of major themes of the research study. This

helped sharpen the focus of the research.

Every literary text is a historically situated piece. Texts are rooted in the

cultural assumptions and historical experiences of their own world. Gadamer

(1975) refers to the historical horizon as its ‘effective historical consciousness.’

260
Because the rhetorical situation of the Philem was prompted by the master-slave

relationship exigence between the main object and subject of the letter’s appeal,

Chapter Two explored the culture of Greco-Roman slavery in the 1st Century.

It provided insights into the conceptualisation of slaves, forms of slavery, ways

into slavery, opportunities for liberation and the issue of slave flight and diverse

thoughts of philosophers on slavery.

The chapter concluded that slavery was a conventional institution deeply

entrenched in the fabrics of Greco-Roman culture. The societal laws

safeguarded masters’ dominion over their slaves and obliged slaves to offer

absolute service to their masters. The Roman society was structured in such a

way that both masters and slaves needed each other. Despite its exploitative

nature and inherent abuses, slavery was not openly subjected to ethical

discourse.

No NT material or figure set out to deal with the broad topic of

enslavement with the explicit aim of ending the social practice. Philem is a

specific letter addressed to resolve some difficulties or challenges between a

particular slave and his master. The letter was not a treaty or a premeditated

propagandistic piece addressed to state authorities to stop slavery practices or

to incite a revolution against the practice. The chapter provided a broader

background context to Paul’s plea for Onesimus, who was a ran away slave. It

served to acquaint readers with slavery practices and conventions of the 1st

Century Greco-Roman era and prepared them for the actual exegetical study of

Philem.

Chapter Three was captioned, ‘Distanciation: An Exegetical Analysis of

Philem.’ The exegetical study highlighted the rhetorical design, structural

261
elements and persuasive intent of the letter. To do this effectively, Kennedy’s

model for the rhetorical study of a textual piece proved helpful in this

endeavour. The text of Philem was allowed to be “other” to speak differently to

‘us’ from its historical and literary contexts.

The chapter established the situatedness of Philem as a typical 1st

Century Christian letter written to respond to a concrete issue that occasioned

its writing. Specifically, Philem is a private personal letter imploring Philemon

to receive the returned slave without punishing him but instead making

adjustments that would enhance the humanness of the slave in the household.

The delicate nature of the controversial issue made Paul employ a highly subtle

argumentation to put across his appeal. Paul makes a passionate appeal for ‘love

in action.’ He understands well that only love can transform an impaired

relationship into one that provides opportunities and privileges for each party to

thrive. Paul also knows that treating one as a brother—with love, patience,

forgiveness, tolerance, and compassion—is a fundamental duty of the believer.

Therefore, he wrote the letter to introduce transformative values into the

mundane socio-economic relationship between Onesimus and Philemon.

Indeed, he tries to transform the perspectives of Philemon (to make him

appreciate Christian values of mastery) and Onesimus (to make him embrace

the Christian idea of service).

Paul’s petition to Philemon is worded in a deliberative fashion albeit

modified to conform to epistolary structure and style. The thanksgiving or

proem (vv. 4-7) functions as the exordium, the main body (vv. 8-16) serves as

argumentative proofs, and the body-ending (vv. 17-22) acts as the peroration of

the deliberative plea. The rhetorical acrobatics of Paul reveals the gravity of the

262
offence Onesimus might have done. Paul complimented Philemon, postponed

negative material about Onesimus, spiritualised the socio-economic

relationship between Philemon and Onesimus, made concealed threats, and

evaluated the episode of Onesimus’ departure from the supernatural viewpoint.

This extreme display of diplomacy and advocacy implies that Philemon was in

a frantic state at the time of receiving the letter.

The analysis isolated the types of arguments and the rhetorical

techniques utilised to enrich the message of the letter. Non-artistic proofs such

as argumentum ad miscercordium and appealing to past experiences and shared

truth, exemplary paradigms as well as mutual indebtedness were applied to

decorate the appeal. Also, rhetorical techniques such as emotive concepts,

distributive adjectives, repetition, euphemism, irony, word plays, words

placement, paronomasia, parenthesis as well as syntactic arrangements

contributed to the impact of the communication. For instance, Paul plays with

words on the Greek name ‘Onesimon’ which means “useful” when he writes,

“I am appealing to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become

during my imprisonment. Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed

useful both to you and to me” (v. 10). In the same verse, the emphasis on Paul’s

current state as desmios Christou Iēsou engenders sympathy and attention to his

plea. Where Paul tells Philemon, “I owe you,” suggesting reparation for

Onesimus’ debts, he wittily adds, “I say nothing about your owing me even your

own self” (v. 19). Again, Paul appeals to the best instincts of Philemon, in these

words, “Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing you will do even

more than I say” (v. 21). In the event Philemon planned to do less, Paul appends

one more request, asking him to prepare a visitor’s room since he will likely be

263
coming to visit him soon (v. 22). These clearly shows the artistic clandestine of

the actual appeal to Philemon.

The analysis also established that while Paul seems to be ostensibly

appealing to Philemon’s sense of faithfulness in Christ and love towards God’s

people to voluntarily consider his Christian sense of duty in the matter put

before him, he rhetorically leaves no room for the paterfamilias to do otherwise.

At the peroratio, Paul indirectly coerces Philemon to demonstrate his sense of

common partnership in the faith and the gospel business. He also threatens

Philemon with an (un)announced visit to verify how the paterfamilias

responded to his plea.

Constructed to be read aloud during the congregation of the saints,

Philem puts an inordinate amount of pressure on Philemon. The highly revered

honestas of Philemon as a generous Christian benefactor is rhetorically put on

the spot because every single member of the saints who had heard to the

ecclesial delivery of the apostle Paul’s epistle watched attentively to see how he

would respond to the plea. Thus, Philemon is being compelled to an extreme

degree to defend his dignitas before everyone, including the imprisoned Paul

and his co-workers as well as the Lord Jesus Christ who is watching the scene

from above. Philemon was challenged to remember or acknowledge his

koinonia in the body of Christ and to prioritise his Christian honour as beloved

brother and benefactor in the Lord Jesus.

In a perplexing situation of fear, confusion and hopelessness, Onesimus

found true comfort and love of God through Paul; he got his perspective

renewed – through the Christian catechism imparted unto him by Paul – to take

up his current role as a domestic slave and serve the master meaningfully as he

264
would serve the Lord Jesus himself. From our analysis of the rhetorical density

of the letter’s structure and argumentation, it was established that Paul’s plea

for Onesimus worked out to achieve its primary intended purpose. It was

hypothesised that the erred Onesimus was definitely spared of the unimaginable

wrath and punitive punishment deserving deserted slaves because Paul’s

intercessory appeal fashioned rhetorically on Christian ethical ideals made a

gracious way for him. The researcher generated specific labels from the

exegesis of the text to examine the text’s contextualisation and appropriations.

Chapter Four discussed the various meanings people put on the Philem

in their contexts. First of all, the researcher explored the contextualisation of

Philem in the 18th Century West Indies’ Island of St. Thomas, where both white

planters and Moravian missionaries lived out their Christian convictions amidst

the enslavement of black peoples. The white planters, predominantly from the

English Church, understood Philem’s message as one which does not forbid the

enslavement of negroes. However, the Moravians derived meanings that made

them champion the welfare, religiosity, and spiritual (and in some cases,

physical) freedom of enslaved Afro-Caribbean people. These pietistic

Christians arrived at the understanding that Christianity is incompatible with

keeping house slaves. The Beverhouts, for instance, took a genuine interest in

the welfare of Shelly (who later became baptised as Rebecca); they educated

her in reading and writing and later granted her her freedom at a very tender

age. Rebecca grew up to become the first ordained black women evangelist in

black Christianity. Nicholas Count Zinzendorf, who sponsored the mission to

black negroes on St. Thomas, did not regard the physical station of the slaves

as important as their spiritual enslavement to the devil. He explained that there

265
could be spiritual brotherhood between slaves and masters, although spiritual

equality does not alter the slave’s earthly location in life.’

The white planters of Dutch and English established Church interpreted

Philem to support their economic ventures in the West Indies and were unready

to entertain any other interpretation that would cause them to risk their

economic power over the enslaved negroes. On the other hand, the Moravians

contextualised Philem to support the enslavement of negroes but emphasized

the need to expose enslaved persons to the lights of the gospel. Finally, the

Chapter sought to find out the meaning Ghanaian Christians make of the labels

derived from the exegetical reading of Philem in Chapter Three. Both domestic

maids and Christian parents explained the text from the perspective of their

social location and experiences in the household or business environment.

Chapter Five looked at pragmatic usages people make from Philem

following their contextualisation of the text and the tensions involved in

handling master-servant relationships. White planters at St. Thomas resisted

catechism and religious meetings of slaves because they often conflicted with

slaves’ productivity or work output on the plantations. They were

uncomfortable with the perceived consequences of Christian conversion on the

existing social order of the plantation culture. However, the pious Christian

planters gave liberty to their slaves out of the understanding that a true Christian

cannot hold others in servitude and still maintain his/her position as a true

believer in the gospel of Christ. Zinzendorf appropriated Philem to instruct

slaves to focus on spiritual freedom instead of earthly liberty. He and the

Moravian missionaries like Martins championed the Christianisation of negroes

on the Caribbeans.

266
 In the process, the black people also seized an opportunity to improve

themselves in literacy and reading. This created constant conflicts between

Christian slaves and their masters. Each side drew on scriptural passages like

Philem to pursue their interest and convictions. The enlightened Afro-Caribbean

negroes felt that they were equal to their masters in Christ; hence it was

improper to submit as a slave to a fellow Christian. Even within the Moravian

community of believers, the Afro-Caribbean Christians like Rebecca Protten

were not always welcomed as equal to the white brethren; they faced constant

discrimination and abuse from both white brethren and planters. The white

people opposed Rebecca and exiled her to Herrnhut did so simply because they

were not comfortable with the reality of sharing equal status with those they

deemed as slaves and subordinates.

Using the categories developed from the reading of the text, I presented

and analysed gathered data from fictive children, maids and store

assistants/attendants in the Ghanaian context. Christian parents have diverse

experiences with maids and fictive children. Some revealed the frustration and

difficulties involved in keeping maids and house helps. The study established

that some of the maids and fictive children (who were adopted to serve as maids)

either did not understand their social status in their new challenging

environments or viewed their domestic service roles in negative terms. Whereas

some fictive parents genuinely worked out a mutually profitable relationship

with the housemaids or fictive children, it came out that others were very

exploitative and did nothing to help them improve or acquire skills, education

and spiritual development. Some maids were tagged as problematic, ungrateful,

lazy and unwilling to accept their role as maids in the master-servant contracts.

267
 Some cocoa plantation owners interviewed have unchristian principles

regarding how they treat their hired labourers: poor wages and harsh conditions

of service. Nonetheless, some maids also attested to kind and gentle treatment

from their Christian employers and parents. They were given opportunities for

self-improvement, education and spirituality. These Christian masters felt it as

their obligation to make room for their maids or subordinates to become better

persons knowing very well that would cost them financially or create inevitable

tensions in the household.

The dialogue between the text and the context brought out some

transformative lessons for Ghanaian Christian households. Maids and fictive

children were challenged to view ‘service’ in positive terms and serve their

masters or employers wholeheartedly since it is through service, God would

give them the opportunity for self-realisation and personal development.

Likewise, Christian parents and employers were challenged to demonstrate

Christian faith and love toward their maids and fictive children. Desmond Tutu

(1983) captures it vividly by saying:

The life of every human person is inviolable as a gift from God. And
since this person is created in the image of God and is also God carrier,
we should have a deep reverence for that person. To treat such persons
as if they were less than this, to oppress them, to trample their dignity
underfoot, is not just evil as it surely must be; it is not just painful as it
frequently must be for the victims of injustice and oppression. It is
positively blasphemous, for it is tantamount to spitting in the face of God
(p. 161).

The Christian is called to action to continually make adjustments for their maids

and fictive children to experience the love, tenderness and refreshment of God.

Equally, maids and fictive children are invited to interpret their roles as servants

in the light of the gospel; learn to submit and work with diligence and

268
wholeheartedness, knowing that God will emancipate them through their

dedicated service and patience.

Chapter Six summarised all the essential components of the thesis. This

made it possible for the researcher to outline the major issues that emerged out

of the study to deduce conclusions and offer suggestions for further research

and transformation of Ghanaian society.

Findings

In line with the specific research objectives, the study came out with the

following findings.

Nature of slavery in 1st Century Greco-Roman context

The study established that:

• The master-slave relationship was an entrenched social arrangement that

affected every aspect of life in the Greco-Roman world – religion,

politics, education, economy, marriage, family and law.

• Masters had the legal and absolute right of ownership over their slaves;

slaves owed their very existence to masters, even the breath they draw

from the air.

• The Greco-Roman slave was a commodified person with a definite

economic or financial value in the possession and control of another

person. The institution served the interest of masters more than slaves.

• There were severe forms of abuse, exploitation and extreme domination

in Greco-Roman slavery; the laws on slavery were not strictly enforced;

slaves were thus, left at the mercy of their masters.

• Slaves performed different roles ranging from domestic services –

cleaners, midwives, water carriers, attendants, etc. – to complex or more

269
 dignified services of stewards, business managers, administrators, and

teachers.

• Greco-Roman slavery was not tied to racist tendencies – slaves were

allowed education and participation in the religious traditions of their

owners; they were not tied to the bottom of socio-economic pyramids.

Furthermore, there was no segregation of free and unfree in most

professions.

• There were stringent laws on slave flights; those who managed to escape

were often recaptured and returned to their lawful owners to continue

their servitude. While on the run, the fugitive could seek asylum at the

residence of a friend of the master or religious sanctuary.

• Manumission was an integral part of Greco-Roman slavery; however,

the freed person continued to serve the former master in a patron-client

relationship.

270
The rhetorical strategies employed by Paul to persuade or move Philemon

to comply with his deliberative appeal

Draper’s contextual reading model allowed the researcher to subject the text to

a rigorous exegetical study. Regarding the rhetorical strategies and

argumentations of Paul in Philem, the study established the following in the

reading:

• Paul applied his knowledge of rhetorical categories of the time to

decorate his appeal to Philemon. Having learnt the art of persuasion

through training and observation of oratorical performances, Paul

modelled the effective way of placing a request in such a controversial

but sensitive circumstance. When Onesimus’ situation confronted him,

Paul drew from his depth of knowledge in rhetoric to fashion compelling

arguments in epistolary format to make intercession for him. He

carefully constructed argumentations that would arrest the mind, heart

and all other external senses of Philemon to cause him to grant Paul’s

request – primarily. The returned slave is to be received without threats

of punishment or any vindictiveness.

• In terms of structure, Paul strategically adapted the conventional

epistolary sections (prescript, proem or thanksgiving and postscript) of

Philem to enhance the rhetorical goal. He structured the body section

into argumentative proofs (vv. 8-16) and peroratio (vv. 17-21), offered

emotive and theological arguments for his appeal and recapitulated them

with imperative demands respectively.

• The appeal of the letter was carefully and intentionally constructed. It

parallels classical conventions governing intercessory speech in difficult

271
 or scandalous circumstances. It reveals that a straightforward or

unpremeditated appeal would have less likely yielded the desired effect.

Paul, therefore, advanced an indirect yet forceful appeal with different

literary and artistic ornaments.

• The letter displays the power of dramatization. Paul does not just make

a revolutionary appeal for Onesimus; he sets Philemon before the entire

Church; he embodies the slave as himself – his own splangchna; he

dramatically moves Philemon to refresh his heart; and finally, he

reinforces his appeal by the dramatic request for a guest room regarding

an impending visit. All this dramatic touch influenced Philemon to react

favourably to Paul’s appeal.

• In the exordium section of the letter, Paul located core Christian values

of Philemon (i.e., his faith towards the Lord Jesus, [the source of] his

love towards God’s people); he lavished incomparable praises on

Philemon’s honour and social prestige as the generous benefactor of the

saints (vv.4-5, 7); and he finally offered a solemn intercessory prayer for

him (v.6).

• The deliberate adaptation of the letter’s proem functioned to arrest the

ears, heart and mind of Philemon and induced him to be receptive to the

discourse. Expressing gratitude is conceived as a powerful approach to

sustaining the reciprocal exchange of gifts (Aristotle Rhet. 1.2.3). Again,

the exordium prefigured key motives (i.e., the theme of agape, koinonia

or splangchna and adelphē) that were later employed even more

emotionally by Paul to present his ultimate plea. The prayer-wish at

verse 6 ostensibly prompted Philemon to perceive (epignōsis) every

272
 good thing (pantos agatheo) he ought to carry out for Christ. The same

observation was made about the joy-expression in the exordium: it was

fashioned to influence Philemon to continue his benevolent activity of

refreshing the hearts of saints. People are prepared to give off more of

themselves when their relevant past good deeds are singled out and well

acknowledged.

• He deliberately started the intercessory plea on the note of empathetic

love, but he underscored his credible apostolic authority to order

Philemon to undertake the “the right thing.” At the peroratio section,

however, Paul coerced Philemon to demonstrate his obligation to the

common partnership among them in Christ or to suffer the consequence.

• Paul set forth propositions that exemplified his own practical love and

affection for the subject of the appeal. He described the subject as “my

child,” “begotten in prison bondage” (v. 10).

• Also, he made deliberate moves to evoke feelings of respect and

sympathy for his current state as an imprisoned ambassador of Christ (v.

9). He also amplified the key concept parakelō twice to pull the

heartstrings before mentioning the subject of his intercession:

Onesimus.

• The suspension of the subject’s name was rhetorical (v. 10a). Even so

was punning on the name: Onēsimon, who previously was achrēston

(unprofitable) to you, but presently has become euchrēston (profitable)

indeed, to you and me (v. 11). By this literary device, Paul established

the motif of utility (utilitas) in the inherent usefulness of Onesimus as a

human person. He also used his own splangchna (entrails or bowels) as

273
 an emotive metaphor for Onesimus in order to arrest the heart and

emotions of Philemon.

• Paul showed high regard for Philemon’s legal ownership over Onesimus

(v. 14). He willingly supported the convention of returning a runaway

slave back to the legitimate master. Nonetheless, there was an implicit

appeal to the willing consent of the slaveowner.

• Paul adapted the argument from design to fashion his actual intercessory

plea. This persuasive strategy influenced Philemon, firstly, to

acknowledge the supreme sovereignty of God over human affairs, and

secondly, to discern what was God’s will for him in that challenging

situation. The argument from design was a deliberate attempt by Paul to

influence Philemon’s sense-making of Onesimus’ flight (v. 15). God

superintended the fleeing Onesimus for a divine reason: to transform the

slave’s understanding of ‘servanthood’ and cause him to serve better and

meaningfully. Paul persuaded Philemon to make adjustments for

Onesimus to serve him better by receiving him and treating him as a

brother.

• Paul framed his intercessory appeal by way of highlighting the

enormous benefits awaiting Philemon should he willingly accede and

take back Onesimus, who, in theological terms, had been temporarily

separated from the master (v. 16). Implicitly, Paul persuaded Philemon

to take back his erred slave unto himself and make all necessary

adjustments for the slave to experience brotherly affection and humane

treatment in both human affairs and sacred contexts.

274
• At the peroratio, Paul emphatically recapitulated his intercessory plea

with a hypothetical imperative statement that carries veiled coercion.

The conditional statement mounted pressure on Philemon to prove his

sense of koinonia (fellowship) to proslambaō (welcome) Onesimus as

the ‘incarnation’ of Paul, the konōnos. This carefully constructed

statement added rhetorical force to the plea (v. 17).

• The promissory note meant to guarantee financial restitution to

Philemon for any conceivable financial debt he had incurred following

the temporary absence of his slave was just another rhetorical tactic

cleverly used by Paul to dismantle any anticipated objection the

slaveowner was holding against the runaway slave (v 18).

• The literary device known as paralipsis was applied to indirectly expose

the enormous debts of gratitude Philemon owed for his salvation in

Christ. Such a rhetorical manoeuvre also served to implicate Philemon

to consider the substance of Paul’s appeal (v. 19).

• Paul incorporated a mild imperative to persistently implore Philemon to

accede to his plea on behalf of Onesimus. He euphemistically presented

Onesimus as his (i.e., Paul’s) own splanchna in urgent need of brother

Philemon’s benevolent refreshment (v. 20).

• The discourse painted a vivid visual motion that caused Philemon to

imagine Paul himself standing before him, speaking the very words: Nai,

adelphe, ego sou onaimēn en Kurio. Anapauson mou ta splanchna en

Christō [Yes, brother, let me have this benefit from you in the Lord!

Refresh my heart in Christ!] (v. 20).

275
• The confident formula in verse 21 was deliberately asserted to maximise

the pe of Philemon finally. It created a sense of obligation in Philemon

through praise. In other words, this confidence declaration tended to

elicit more of the good conduct Philemon had displayed in the past –

benevolent refreshment of the splanchna God’s people.

• The advanced request for xenia and declaration of apostolic visit served

to remind Philemon that Paul would eventually come to see how he

reacted to his intercessory plea for Onesimus (v. 22). That statement also

puts no small amount of pressure on Philemon to think carefully about

how he treated the slave. Philemon, along with his house-church friends,

was driven to visualise Paul travelling to Philemon’s house and staying

there in the lodging provided and to visualise brother Onesimus there at

the same time.

• The mode of delivery of the intercessory plea was argumentative as well

as strategically persuasive. The context of the reading or oral

performance of the discourse was during the worship of the congregated

saints at Philemon’s house, where the paterfamilias usually receives

praises and admiration for his hospitality. Paul staged his appeal in such

a sacral context, in the public gathering where every member of the

house-church was present. The reference to “holy ones” in the

benediction and the inclusive “you” (vv. 22-25) indicate clearly that

Philem was to be performed when the church had gathered at

Philemon’s residence. At such a solemn assembly of God’s people (of

which the returned slave has become a member), Paul calls on Philemon

to do what he does best – to refresh the viscera of Paul deliberately

276
 embodied in the being of Onesimus, to be received hospitably and

treated with kindness and sensitivity like a brother instead of as a mere

(disappointing or disloyal) slave.

• Thus, it is prudent for Christian counsellors, leaders and parents to apply

themselves to their indigenous methods of persuasion when addressing

complex challenges confronting fellow Christian parents, employers

and their housemaids.

Christocentric values in Philem for subverting [secular norms of] slavery

in the 1st Century Christian households

Philem indeed cannot be said to be a Pauline mandate against enslavement

practices of the 1st Century Greco-Roman Christians. However, Paul’s plea in

the letter clearly derives from some core Christocentric values capable of

subverting and transforming the master-slave relationships with a concrete

difficult situation.

The apostle was not indifferent to the specific realities of slavery in the

communities he lived and worked. Even though he does not set forth an outright

decree in the Christian oikos to stop slavery, Paul unequivocally spelt out the

ethics that must govern slaves and masters in their social dealings. Wilson

(1992) underscores that the fact of their fellowship in and common allegiance

to Christ makes a very great difference in the master-slave relationship. Paul

had to live in the realities of slavery as an institution. Though slavery formed an

inherent aspect of the very fabric of the Greco-Roman worldview, Paul

relativised the dehumanizing and exploitative features of the master-slave

relationship in the Christian community. On the above research objective, the

study established the following points:

277
• Compassionate love and altruistic interest in the welfare of those in need

or trouble are two crucial virtues apparent in Philem. Upon meeting

Onesimus and listening to his story, especially the impending danger

awaiting him at the master’s household, Paul was moved by uncommon

compassion to write an irresistible emotive appeal to Philemon and plea

for mercy for the erred slave. Paul’s sincere affection for Onesimus

challenged the unsympathetic condemnations of erred slaves at the time.

By adapting the conventional practice of making an intercessory plea on

behalf of erred slave/freeman, Paul demanded radical adjustments to be

made for the slave to serve meaningfully as a human being, as a brother

(both in Christ and in the flesh).

Even though Paul does not overtly challenge the social

phenomenon of enslavement, he radically transformed the master-slave

relationship between slaves and masters according to Christ’s lordship

and also subverted the core of the institution from within. Furthermore,

by putting Philemon before fellow-Christians to scrutiny and judgement,

Paul skilfully relativises the cultural roles and values of slavery. He

exhorts that Onesimus’ issue should be addressed as a matter pertaining

to one’s identity in the community of faith.

Paul’s expectation for a radical transformation in conventions of

slavery is far more profound than manumission. What Paul requests

from Philemon effectually weakened the collectivist, repressive values

of Greco-Roman society. Paul displaced replaced the relationship

between ‘owner’ and ‘owned’ in the Roman legal system with a

relationship of indebtedness.

278
• Paul’s subtle use of naming demonstrates the possibility of changing

deeply ingrained patterns of domination in a world where it is difficult

to see “the outsider” as a “beloved sister or brother.”

• The study also established that Paul incarnationally identified himself

with both the slave and the master to understand their feelings and

empathise with their concrete experiences and emotions. He

intentionally spoke of himself out of an intimate relationship with both.

The plea presents Onesimus as Paul’s begotten child, begotten prison

cell. It also eulogises Philemon as a fellow-worker in the gospel

business. This Christo-centric theme of incarnation injected a sense of

sensitivity, compassion, sympathy and humanness into slavery practices

in the Greco-Roman communities.

• Paul’s appeal alludes to a fundamental Christian notion which states that

there is no condemnation but only redemption for those who are in

Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). Indeed, Onesimus was a captured runaway

slave who was going to face the full rigour of the law. Nevertheless,

Paul’s timely appeal subverted this natural aspect of the slavery

convention. Paul refused to centre his appeal on the condemnation of

Onesimus’ wrongful deed(s). This is in sharp contrast to the appeal Pliny

rendered on behalf of Sabinianus’s freedman. Again, Paul refused to

condemn Philemon for any perceived unchristian or harsh treatment that

might have caused the slave to flee. No energy was to condemn

Onesimus or Philemon for whatever wrong each might have committed

against the other. Instead, the appeal focused on the goodness in both

the subject and object of the letter. Paul reminded Philemon about how

279
 much he could impact another person’s life through his usual

benevolence conduct. Equally, he pointed out the goodness in Onesimus

as a useful person whose horizon about serving has been transformed.

Whilst Christians were sinners, Christ took them, catechised and

transformed them into sons and daughters of the kingdom of God.

Paul exemplified this theology of gracious adoption in the

practical situation concerning Onesimus, the runaway slave. Just as

Christ voluntarily put his life, glory and kingdom on the line just to

demonstrate the supreme expression of love for humanity, Paul too

vividly depicts unusual compassion and interest in the welfare of

Onesimus by putting his fellowship with Philemon on the line. As if that

was not enough, he vowed to pay (or atone for) the debts of Onesimus,

just to have him ‘received and treated as a human being, as a brother and

not an animated object. Thus, Paul’s emotive but sincere description of

the erred slave as his own splangchna, and his readiness to pay off

Onesimus’ debt to enable the slave to maximise his humanness,

irrespective of his social location, is no less a subversive message to the

conventions of slavery in 1st Century Greco-Roman era.

The Christocentric value of sharing in the suffering of others or

going the extra mile to intervene in their dilemmatic life – situations as

an advocate or surety, vividly characterised Paul’s plea for Onesimus

and subverted the typical way of treating erred slaves.

• It was established that the Christian principle of love and brotherhood

employed by Paul to fashion his appeal had subversive intents. By

inference from the way runaway slaves were treated, it was argued that

280
 Paul’s request to Philemon had a strong subversive quality. The letter’s

request redefined inhumane slavery conventions in Philemon’s

household with values found in Christ. The profound use of familial

language regarding Onesimus indicated that whereas Philemon could

still maintain the master-slave relationship with Onesimus, the social

institution was to be anchored primarily on their shared brotherhood in

Christ. Indeed, it would have been counter-cultural for a Roman

paterfamilias to take his own slave as a brother in the 1st Century world.

It was extremely radical and subversive on the part of Paul in

demanding Philemon to accept and consider Onesimus, his runaway

slave, as ‘a beloved brother.’ Paul addressed Onesimus’ situation in such

a way that it was synchronously redemptive and culturally sensitive. He

neither endorsed the exploitative and cruel ideology of Greco-Roman

slavery nor presented a direct confrontation with Roman state laws.

While Paul still confirms the slavery status of Onesimus, he makes a

case against the inhumane treatment of slaves.

• The study established that Paul adopted the ecclesial setting to summon

Philemon before the congregation and demanded him to demonstrate or

prove his faith in Christ and partnership with the saints in the matter

concerning his erred slave. Unlike the secular context where

slaveholders seem unaccountable to anyone and may treat their erred

slaves in whatever manner they want, Philemon, a Christian slaveholder,

was challenged to carefully discern the appropriate way to react to the

shortcomings of his slave. In the household code of Ephesians, the

Pauline writer charges slave masters to forbear threatening their slaves

281
 because both have a common divine master in heaven to whom they

shall render an account. Paul’s strategy of using the larger community

of believers to judge whether or not Philemon is following the apostle’s

advice relativised the secular legal system of dealing with slavery issues.

Contextualisation of Philem in West Indies St. Thomas and Ghanaian

communities

Concerning the contextual meanings put on Philem, the study established the

following findings:

• Most white planters interpreted slavery as a phenomenon supported by

Scripture; they did not tolerate groups seeking to bring the gospel to the

enslaved negroes. Their dilemma was that Christianity, with its promise

of freedom, would make it uneasy for them to continue to keep their

slaves in servitude.

• Given ‘the Philemon mastery dilemma’ faced by Christian planters,

Nicolaus Zinzendorf, the patron of the Moravian mission, interpreted

Philem and other texts on slavery in the Bible to teach that Christian

conversion and baptism do not guarantee freedom of the enslaved.

Zinzendorf interpreted that Onesimus continued to serve in the

household of Philemon as a Christian servant. Philemon provided an

enabling environment for Onesimus to improve and serve God.

• With this interpretation, the Moravians championed welfare, education,

spirituality, and improved condition of service for enslaved people. In

their model communities and plantations, the Moravians pursued the

interests of slaves by allowing them the freedom to religious meetings,

and to learn reading and writing. However, there was also the impression

282
 that God ordained slavery and that slave masters were to engage in the

practice and use the proceeds for the good of humanity.

• However, many enslaved people who had the opportunity to receive

Christian instruction, baptism and participation in fellowships would use

scriptures like Philem to make a case for freedom and equality. Thus,

there was contradictory contextualisation on the islands: slave masters

were using the scripture to protect their economic ventures, which

included slaves and whilst the slaves were ardently using scripture to

assert their liberation from enslavement.

• The issue of justice and equal treatment of humanity caused some

Christian masters to set their slaves free after exposing them to Christian

instruction in reading and writing. The conscience of such pietistic

Christian planters did not allow them to keep slaves due to the ethical

dilemma often posed by master-slave relationships.

• The majority of Ghanaian Christian parents interpret Philem as a text

that does not prohibit housemaids or servants. A master-servant contract

is a social arrangement that does not contradict God’s teachings. Thus,

Christian parents in Ghana appropriate or subvert portions of Philem to

resonate with their contextual needs without a complete comprehension

of the historical and literary meanings of the scriptural text.

Significant insights from the dialogic encounter between text and context

Concerning this objective, the study made the following deductions:

• The engagement of maids or adopting fictive children in domestic

service is not a moral issue; however, their treatment is morally called

into question. The text inculcates a new attitude among slaves and

283
 masters – a spirit of charity since all are “slaves” of the same Lord. It is

deducible from the dialogic encounter of text and context that slaves and

domestic servants or employees are to be treated not as mere surrogate

bodies or animated tools useful for domination and exploitation. Hence,

the Ghanaian Christian is challenged to make necessary adjustments for

the maid/or fictive child to maximise his/her humanness and hidden

talents.

• Christians’ attitude toward domestic workers or fictive children speaks

the loudest about the authenticity of one’s faith and obedience to the

demands of the gospel in Christendom.

• Irrespective of the failings of domestic workers, the Christian parent is

always required to discern the ‘Christian way” to respond to the

problems posed by such social arrangements. In the text, the offended

master was implored to resist any vindictive feelings toward the slave

but rather respond to the challenging situation with unparallel love,

hospitality and forgiveness. Similarly, the Christian parents in the

Ghanaian household are challenged to live out the insights of Paul’s plea

to Philemon in concrete life situations when their maids or fictive

children push them to act in a manner that, by comparison to the essence

of Paul’s appeal, would be unchristian.

• Just as the text challenges Christian employers to make adjustments,

domestic servants and employees should also have renewed

understanding about ‘serving’ and serve their masters meaningfully.

One could improve on his/her social status by first accepting the current

status and meaningfully working bottom-up. They are implored to have

284
 the mental and emotional fortitude to cope with the realities of their

present circumstances.

Conclusions

This sub-section summarises the central ideas of the thesis to bring the

study to a holistic closure. These emerging ideas are employed to offer an

overall value judgement of Philem and domestic workers based on the laid down

objectives and findings of the study.

The overriding purpose of this thesis has been to interpret Philem

contextually as a rhetorical discourse carefully prepared by Paul to fashion an

urgent plea to Philemon in the matter involving the erred slave, Onesimus, and

to draw significant inferences for contemporary Christians who are involved in

keeping housemaids or other domestic workers and fictive children. The work

gives a relevant contribution to ABH. It creatively employed Draper’s model

and was able to overcome what represents the limits of the method: excessive

focus on the context with the risk to manipulate the text to suit the context and/or

producing pseudo-biblical theology. The integration of the tri-polar method has

resulted in an approach respectful of the text and context.

Philem is not a carefully thought-out Christian treatise on the question

of slavery in the 1st Century community. Indeed, none of the NT materials was.

Instead, the letter is an occasional text prompted by a concrete matter involving

a slave who had become a Christian and his master, a famous benefactor of a

Christian congregation in Colossae. The study aimed at highlighting the

rhetorical skills and tacts that Paul brings to bear in writing to Philemon about

such a controversial issue concerning the latter’s slave, Onesimus. It can be

285
concluded that Paul did so in a manner that sincerely considered the social

dynamics and subtleties of the 1st Century CE world.

The Greco-Roman world was a slaveholding society where ‘the master-

slave relationship’ influenced every sector of life. Although it was built to

favour masters, the Roman slave system made few provisions for the welfare

and upward mobility of slaves. However, not many slaves experienced

cordiality, warmth and acceptance in their servitude, especially erred slaves.

The harsh conditions of slavery usually prompted philosophical essays from

thinkers who condemned the inhumane abuses and practical complexities or

tensions associated with slavery. Thus, Philem should be understood as a

Christian response to tensions from the slavery institution in a Christian

community.

It is a mind-stimulating exercise when pealing through the layers of

rhetoric which Paul employed to persuade, petition, commend and command

the slave owner and leader of a house church. Paul handled Onesimus’ situation

in such a way that was both synchronously redemptive and culturally sensitive,

that is, in a way that neither endorsed the exploitative and cruel ideology of

Greco-Roman slavery nor presented a confrontation with Roman state laws.

Instead, the rhetorical force is aimed directly at Philemon to bring about a new

disposition of mind that is socially formative. The rhetoric moves Philemon to

put his love and faith into complete practical application. It lays principles to

draw disparate people or socially diverse and antagonistic people together.

Thus, Philem presents a new morality to the believing community of the

Mediterranean basin.

286
 The plea of Paul empties the slaveholding ethos of its power. It

emphasises how believers from different social levels relate to one another. This

theme raises questions about how Ghanaian Christian parents conduct their

lives, individually and collectively, in the light of Paul’s message in Philem.

Paul’s affection towards Onesimus and respect for his dignity send a

solid message to Christians to display sensitivity and recognition for the

humanness of maids or servants. The familial concepts and other emotive

metaphors that Paul employs to describe his relationship with the alien slave set

up an exemplary standard for Christians to emulate. Hence, it is the Christian

way of living to demonstrate genuine affection, respect, empathy and love in

one’s relationship with persons at the base of the social mobility hierarchy, like

maids.

Also, the urgency and importance that Paul attaches to the situation of a

common slave he encountered in the prison cell are noteworthy. It continues to

baffle the minds of many readers why Paul felt obliged to respond to a secular

domestic matter with the same sense of duty he applied to theological issues

that occasioned the other letters. By Philem, Paul makes a succinct and clear

point that Christian living has everything to do with one’s relationship with

maids and fictive children in the household. There is an inclusive and explicit

vision of social relationships concerning slaves. The stratified and hierarchical

arrangement of Greco-Roman society is resisted and replaced.

In the Christian believing community, slaves are more than mere slaves;

they are familial members. It was this emerging Christian ethics that Paul aimed

to impress on Philemon’s mind. Thus, Philem sowed seeds that were expected

later to bloom and transform slavery relationships for the better in societies. At

287
its core, Philem is an authoritative literary piece about discerning God’s will

and making his will shape the living structures of this world.

The contextualisation and appropriation of Philem brought

transformation to the conditions of enslaved blacks in the Caribbean islands.

Aside from informing the missionary strategies of Zinzendorf and his group,

Philem also empowered enslaved negroes to assert their freedom, dignity and

equality on the plantations. Many freed slaves like Rebecca Protten – who was

set free by her master – used their previous experiences and current Christian

statuses to reach out to many enslaved Africans: they encouraged these blacks

to embrace the true spiritual freedom brought by the gospel of Christ.

Recommendations

The complexities facing Christian employers, maids and fictive children

is an issue that bothers many households worldwide. This study has been an

attempt to garner insights into the subject through a contextual reading of

Philem. However, it did not specifically touch on the household codes in

Colossians, Ephesians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. Therefore, there is the

possibility of another study that focuses on the household codes in the Pauline

corpus for additional resources to promote understanding and transformation of

domestic relationships in Christian households. It is also recommended that

child labour and modern slavery activists and social workers collaborate with

transformative readers of religious texts such as the bible to come up with an

appealing message to mitigate the menace of modern slavery and abuse in our

communities.

In sociological studies, it is crucial to assess the number of domestic

workers who have been assisted in developing themselves through education

288
and business. In addition, other African contextual reading models such as

liberation and transformative hermeneutics could be applied to this text to help

generate new meanings which can assist deal with challenges confronting

Christian parents, employers, maids and fictive children.

The thesis has examined the complex dimensions of master-servant

complexities in the household whilst arguing for a win-win situation. The

DOVSU, Social Welfare Departments, Ministry Women, Gender and Children

Affairs, and Youth ministries and Women fellowships in the Christian

congregations may consider organising workshops or talks for Christian parents

and business people on the Christian way of handling maids and workers. These

forums or talks must tackle the “I am your master; you are my servant”

mentality some Christian parents use to coerce and maltreat their workers. Also,

the notion of “I am doing them a favour” and the excessive use of power or

control over the maids or workers should be critically watched because it can

make the Christian parent or employer heartless and over-demanding. Indeed,

when Christian parents attend workshops or seminars that talk about themes

such as ‘maintaining a win-win relationship with house-helps and maids,’ they

would be convinced or encouraged to go back to implement principles that

would transform challenges in the household.

The study also calls on Ghanaian contemporary churches to employ

advocacy to denounce any hidden forms of modern slavery in the community

as part of their socio-religious responsibility. Inability to transform faith in

action is a problematic attitude that needs to be addressed theologically and

pastorally if Ghanaian Christianity wants to be relevant and transformative. The

church leaders should adopt diplomacy to exert persistent pressure on Christian

289
employers or parents who are noted for infringing on the human dignity of their

workers. Leaders of God’s kingdom should not allow their prophetic tongues to

be silenced by the financial contributions of business people in their

congregations but must tactfully use the values of Christianity as exemplified in

Philem to confront, convict and reform such influential patrons of the church.

The research study also invites leaders of various religious bodies in

Ghana to take up the responsibility to organise workshops to educate members

and the general populace on modern slavery: its meaning, forms, and effects on

human dignity. The Church must partner with the international community by

using the pulpit to educate believers on the issue. Also, leaders of the church

can schedule talks on modern slavery as part of activities marking festive

occasions in the religious community. Surprisingly, there are people in the

Church who have never given a thought to this heinous practice in their

community. Those who have given it thought might even think that

contemporary slavery is about strangers getting to a community to purchase

others and transport them to another geographical place. A lot of people are not

simply aware that modern slavery lives in the homes and workplaces.

Workshops become an effective means of educating members of the community

about it and empowering them with the requisite knowledge so that they neither

become victims nor perpetrators of the menace. Again, such workshops and

talks could afford victims space to share real stories of modern slavery. Equally,

it provides space for Christian parents and employers to learn the best practices

so as not to disrespect or abuse the subordinates working for them.

Furthermore, the Church and Christians should prayerfully reflect on

their actions and inactions which enforce modern slavery. It is time that the

290
Christian bodies began posing critical questions to themselves. What is the

condition of individuals working in the Church? Where do Christians locate

themselves in the supply and demand chain of modern slavery? What measures

can they take to minimise their participation in the menace? As part of their

social services, Christian bodies (or denominations and congregations as well

as personalities) should draw up a program to help in identifying and saving

victims and supporting them through rehabilitation. Paul’s intervention for the

traumatised Onesimus is a ‘prophetic’ reminder to Christian bodies about their

obligation toward victims of modern slavery. If Paul did not take off his eyes but was

prepared to stake his life to secure a dignified restoration for Onesimus, then Philem

calls on Christian bodies to think and act as Paul towards ‘the Onesimuses’ in our

communities.

Ecclesial accountability in the Christian community is yet another

recommendation for handling master-slave tensions. In Philem, Paul deliberately puts

Philemon before the Christian congregation and demands him to do the fitting thing.

Philemon’s honour in the community depended on how he reacted towards Onesimus.

This is a Christian culture that can be nurtured in the Ghanaian religious landscape.

Christian parents and employers should be made to be accountable in their community.

Christian leaders should be particularly interested in how Christian parents or

employers treat their subordinates in the community. They should not praise them just

for their financial contribution or activeness in the fellowships; instead, Christian

neighbours should monitor their activities and influence them to do what brings dignity

and respect to the subordinates in the households and workplace. Whilst secular

institutions work to expose persons and groups engaging in the trafficking of persons,

the believers should also serve as watchdogs to their fellow Christians.

291
 Also, reputable bodies such as Ghana’s Peace Council, the Council of

States, Ghana Pentecostal and charismatic council of churches, the Islamic

council and the Ghana Bishop council should organise inter-faith community

discussions to help split taboos surrounding modern slavery and trafficking in

Ghana. The dialogue-based approach of these bodies would proffer some

concrete solutions to problems that might otherwise seem insurmountable.

In carving a new National Plan of Action for combating modern slavery,

the Government of Ghana should involve leaders of major faith communities in

the country. The unique positions and influence of these leaders make them

imperatively useful in developing the mind and hearts of the people on the evils

inherent in modern slavery. There should be legislative instruments to

acknowledge certain key religious leaders as part of the frontline staff on

modern slavery.

Christian owners of business enterprises should respect inalienable

labour rights and international norms as spelt in the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights, and the ILO’s declarations. They should be mindful of the fact

that the nature and context of their businesses – especially their supply chain –

expose them to the possible risk of instances of modern slavery. Awareness of

this nature can help them assess the extent of these risks in order to take action

to ensure that modern forms of slavery are weeded out from their businesses

and supply chain.

Religious charity should not be limited to acts of love for people in need;

another dimension is political love. Political goodwill spurs individuals to build

more sound institutions, more just laws, and more compassionate structures to

strive to organise and structure society so that one’s neighbour will not find

292
himself or herself improvised. Christian communities and individuals should

exercise moral, intellectual and social humility to admit the evils of modern

slavery for reconciliation and abolition.

Finally, identified perpetrators of modern slavery (be they institutions,

firms or business people) should be forced to make necessary reparations to

their victims. In other words, perpetrators who abuse victims by denying them

acceptable remunerations, or healthy working conditions should be charged and

made to repay with interests. In addition, the costs of treating psychological

traumas or physical illnesses suffered by victims must be paid by the

perpetrators. Properties or wealth of organisations or persons noted for engaging

in modern slavery should be confiscated by the Judicial arm of the Government.

Such wealth could be used to finance carefully planned social projects and

educative workshops for combating modern slavery.

293
 REFERENCES

Adamo, D. T. (2015). What is African Biblical hermeneutics? Black Theology,

13(1), 59 72.

______. (2001). Reading and interpreting the Bible in African Indigenous

Churches. Eugene, OR: WIPF and Stock Publishers.

Aland, B., Aland, K., Karavidopoulos, J., Martini, C. M., & Metzger, B. M.

(2012). Novum Testamentum Graece (28th ed.). Stuttgart: Deutsche

Bibelgesellschaft.

Anum, E. (2009). Collaborative and interactive hermeneutics in Africa: Giving

dialogical privilege in Biblical interpretation. In H. de Wit and G. O.

West (Eds.), Africa and European Readers of the Bible in Dialogue (pp.

143-165). Pietermaritzburg: Cluster Publications.

______. (2000). Comparative readings of the Bible in Africa: Some concerns.

In G. O. West & M. Dube (Eds.), The Bible in Africa: Transactions,

Trajectories and Trends (pp. 457-73). Leiden: E. J. Brill.

———. (1999) The reconstruction of forms of African theology: Towards

effective biblical interpretation. (Doctoral Thesis, Glasgow University,

Glasgow). Retrieved from http://theses.gla.ac.uk/

———. (1996). “Ye Ma Wo Mo! African Hermeneutics, you have spoken at

last: Reflections on SEMEIA 73.” In G. O. West (Ed.), Reading

otherwise: socially engaged Biblical scholars reading with their

communities (pp. 7-18). London, UK: Society of Biblical Literature.

Anderson, R. D. (1999). Ancient rhetorical theory and Paul. Leuven: Peeters.

294
Anum, E., & Quaye, E. (2016). Intercultural reading of John 10:1-21: Shepherd

-Sheep metaphor as a leadership-followership model. Amsterdam:

Foundation Dom Hélder Câmara Chair.

Appiah, S. (2000). Africanness inculturation ethics: In search of the subject of

an inculturated Christian ethics. Frankfurt am Main, Germany:

Peterlang.

Asuman, D., Boakye-Yiadom, L., & Owoo, N. S. (2018). Understanding why

households foster-in Children: Evidence from Ghana. African Social

Science Review, 9(1), 24-59.

Aristotle. (1926). Art of rhetoric (H. Rackham, Trans.). Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.

———. (1937). Rhetorical ad Alexandrum (H. Rackham, Trans.). Cambridge:

Harvard University Press.

———. (1957). Nichomachean ethics. (H. Rackham, Trans.). Cambridge:

Harvard University Press.

Aune, D. E. (1987). New Testament in its literary environment. Philadelphia:

Westminster Press.

Barclay, J. M. (1991). Paul, Philemon and the dilemma of Christian slave –

Ownership. New Testament Studies, 37, 161–86.

Barth, M. & Blanke, H. (2000). The letter to Philemon. ECC. Michigan, Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans.

Bartchy, S. S. (1973). First Century slavery and the interpretation of 1Cor.

7:21. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press.

Betz, H. D. (1979). Galatians: A commentary on Paul’s letter to the churches

in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

295
———. (1986). The problem of rhetoric and theology according to the Apostle

Paul. Leuven: Leuven University Press.

Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, 1-14.

Bradley, K. (2011). Slavery in the Roman Republic. In K. Bradley & P.

Cartledge (Eds.), The Cambridge world history of slavery. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.

———. (1988). Slavery and Roman Law. HR 15, 447-95.

———. (1998). Slavery and society at Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Braund, D. (2011). The slave supply in classical Greece. In K. Bradley & P.

Cartledge (Eds.), The Cambridge world history of slavery (pp. 112-133).

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, J. K. (2007). Scripture as Communication. Introducing biblical

hermeneutics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

Brtinsmead, B. H. (1982). Galatians – Dialogical response to opponents.

Missoula, MT: Scholars.

Bruce, F. F. (1984). The epistle to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the

Ephesians. Michigan, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Byrne, M. (2001). Hermeneutics as a methodology for textual analysis.

Association of Operating Room Nurses. AORN Journal, 73(5), 968-970.

Byron, J. (1997). Paul, Onesimus and the Epistle to Philemon: Is the Fugitive

Slave Hypothesis Accurate? (Unpublished Doctoral thesis). Regent

University, USA.

Bultmann, R. (1941). New Testament and mythology. Munich: Christian

Verlag.

296
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational

analysis. London: Heinemann.

Callahan, A. D. (1997). Embassy of Onesimus: The letter of Paul to Philemon.

Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International.

Carvalho, C. L. (2009). Primer on biblical hermeneutics. Winona, WN: Anslem

Academics.

Cathcart, R. S. (1981). Post communication: Rhetorical analysis and evaluation.

Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill.

Charalambous, A., Papadopoulos, R., & Beadsmoore, A. (2008). Ricoeur’s

hermeneutic phenomenology: An implication for nursing research.

Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 22, 637-642.

Church, F. F. (1978). Rhetorical structure and design in Paul’s letter to

Philemon. Harvard Theological Review, 71, 17–33.

Cicero. (1949). De inventione, De optimo oratorum, and Topica (H. M. Hubbell,

Trans.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

———. (1942). De oratore and De partitione oratoria (E. W. Sutton & H.

Rackham, Trans.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

———. (1954). Rhetorica ad herennium (H. Caplan, Trans.). Cambridge:

Harvard University Press.

Combes, I. A. H. (1998). The metaphor of slavery in the writings of the early

Church. England: Sheffield Academic Press.

Cochrane, J. R. (2001). Already but not yet: Programmatic notes for a theology

of work. In J. R. Cochrane & G. West (Eds.), The threefold cord:

Theology, work and labour (pp. 178-189). Pietermaritzburg: Cluster

Publishing.

297
Corley, B., Lemke, S., & Lovejoy, G. (1996). Biblical hermeneutics. A

comprehensive introduction to interpreting Scripture. Nashville:

Broadman & Holman.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed

methods approaches. London, UK: Sage Publications Limited.

Debesay, J., Naden, D., & Slettebo, A. (2008). How do we close the

hermeneutic circle? A Gadamerian approach to justification in

interpretation in qualitative studies. Nursing Inquiry, 15(1), 57-66.

DeSilva, A. (2000). Honour, patronage, kinship, and purity: Unlocking New

Testament culture. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.

De Vos, C. S. (2001). Once a slave, always a slave? Slavery, manumission and

relational patterns in Paul’s letter to Philemon. JSNT, 82, 85-102.

De Wit, H. (2008). Exegesis and contextuality: Happy marriage, divorce or

living [apart] together? H. de Wit & G. O. West (Eds.), In African and

European Readers of the Bible in Dialogue: In Quest of a Shared

Meaning (pp. 4-25). Leiden: Brill.

Dilthey, W. (1991). Introduction to the human sciences. Princeton University

Press.

Draper, J. A. (2015). African contextual hermeneutics: Readers, reading

communities, and their options between text and context. Religion &

Theology, 22, 3-22.

______. (2006). “Jesus’s “covenantal discourse” on the Plain (Luke 6:12-7:17)

as oral performance: Pointers to “Q” as multiple oral performance. In R.

A. Horsley (Ed.), Oral Performance, Popular Traditions, and Hidden

Transcript in Q (pp. 71-98). Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

298
______. (2001). Old scores and new notes: Where and what is contextual

exegesis. In M. T. Speckman & L. T. Kaufmann (Eds.), The New South

Africa in Towards an Agenda for Contextual Theology: Essays in

Honour of Albert Nolan (pp. 57-89). Pietermaritzburg, South Africa:

Cluster Publications.

Dunn, J. G. D. (1996). The epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: A

commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans

Publishing Co.

Ekem, J. D. K. (2009). A commentary on Paul’s letter to Philemon based on the

Greek text. Accra, Ghana: SonLife Press.

Elliott, S. S. (2010). ‘Thanks, but no thanks’: Tact, persuasion, and the

negotiation of power in Paul’s letter to Philemon. New Testament

Studies, 57, 51-64.

Farooq, M. B. (2018). A review of Gadamerian and Ricoeurian hermeneutics

and its application to interpretive accounting research. The Journal of

Business Communication, 39(1), 92-116.

Feeley-Harnik, G. (1982). Is historical anthropology possible? The case of the

runaway slave. In G. M. Tucker & D. A. Knight (Eds.), Humanizing

America’s Iconic Book (pp. 95–126). Chico, California: Scholars Press.

Finley, M. I. (1998). Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology. Princeton, NJ:

Markus Wiener.

Fiorenza, E. S. (1987). The ethics of interpretation: Decentering Biblical

scholarship. Journal of Biblical Literature, 107, 101-115.

Fitzmyer, J. A. (2000). The letter to Philemon. New York: Doubleday.

299
Fowl, S. (2013). Effective history and the cultivation of wise interpreters.

Journal of Theological Interpretation, 7(2), 153–61.

Frilingos, C. (2000). ‘For my child, Onesimus’: Paul and domestic power in

Philemon. Journal of Biblical Literature, 119, 91–104.

Funk, R. W. (1966). Hermeneutics and the word of God: The problem of

language in the New Testament and contemporary theology. NY, New

York: Harper & Row.

Gadamer, H-G. (1976). Philosophical hermeneutics (D. E. Linge, Trans.).

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

_____. (1997). Reflections on my philosophical journey. In L. E. Hahn (Eds.),

The Philosophy of Hans-Georg Gadamer (pp. 210-256). Chicago: Open

Court.

_____. (1975). Truth and method (G. Barden & J.Cumming, Trans.). New

York: Seabury.

Gardener, J. F. (2011). Slavery and Roman law. In K. Bradley & P. Cartledge

(Eds.), The Cambridge world history of slavery (pp. 414-437).

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Garnsey, P. & R. Saller (2014). The Roman empire: Economy, society and

culture. NY, New York: Bloomsburg.

Garnsey, P. (1999). Ideas of slavery from Aristotle to Augustine. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Gatti, N. (2018). From mastering to serving: Bible and ecology. Urbaniana

University Journal, 2, 155-183.

______. (2017). Toward a dialogic hermeneutics: Reading Gen. 4:1-16 with

Akan Eyes. Horizons in Biblical Theology, 39, 46-67. Leiden: Brill.

300
Gay, L. R. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and

application. NY, New York: Pearson.

Gerbner, K. R. (2018). Christian slavery: Conversion and race in the Protestant

Atlantic world. PA, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Ghana Police Service (2017). Domestic Violence and Victims Support Unit

(DOVVSU). Retrieved from https://police.gov.gh/en/index.php/domesti

c-violence-victims-support-unit-dovvsu/

Glancy, J. (2011). Slavery and the rise of Christianity. In K. Bradley & P.

Cartledge (Eds.), The Cambridge world history of slavery (pp. 468-

4881). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

______. (2006). Slavery in the Early Church. Minneapolis: Fortress.

Gnilka, J. (1982). Der Philemonbrief. Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder.

Goody, J. (1982). Parenthood and social reproduction: Fostering and

occupational roles in West Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

______. (1973). Contexts of kinship: An essay in the family sociology of the

Gonja of Northern Ghana. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Government of Ghana (2022). Commission on Human Rights and Administrative

Justice (CHRAJ). Retrieved from https://chraj.gov.gh/human-rights-

mandate/

Grubbs, J. E. (2013). Infant exposure and infanticide. In Grubbs, J. E. & Parkin,

T. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of childhood and education in the

classical world (pp. 83-107). Retrieved from: http://ebookcentral.

proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=1538381

301
Hampshire, K., Porter, G., Agblorti, S., Robson, E., Munthali, A. & Abane, A.

(2015). Context matters: Fostering, orphanhood and schooling in sub-

Saharan Africa. Journal of Biosocial Science, 47, 141-164.

Hansen, G. W. (1989). Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and rhetorical

contexts. JSNTSup, 1(29). Sheffield: JSOT Press.

Harrill, J. A. (2006). Slaves in the New Testament: Literay, social and moral

dimensions. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

______. (1995). The manumission of slaves in the early Christianity. Tubinge:

J.C.B. Mohr Seibeck.

Harris, M. J. (1991). Colossians and Philemon: Exegetical Guide to the Greek

New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Heil, J. P. (2001). The chiastic and meaning of Paul’s letter to Philemon.

Biblica, 82(2), 178-206.

Hopkins, K. (1978). Conquerors and slaves. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (J. Macquerrie & E. Robinson, . Trans.).

London: SCM.

Hogeterp, A. L. A. (2004). Paul and God’s temple: a historical interpretation

of cultic imagery in the Corinthian correspondence. Groningen:

University of Groningen press.

Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English

translations. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.

302
Holter, K. (2000). Old Testament scholarship in Sub-Saharan Africa North of

the Limpopo River. In G. O. West & M. Dube (Eds.), The Bible in

Africa: Transactions, Trajectories and Trends (pp. 54-71). Leiden,

Boston, Köln: Brill.

Horsely, R. (1997). Paul and empire: Religion and power in Roman imperial

society. Harrisburg, Penns.: Trinity Press Intl.

Ibrahim, K. D. (2010). Understanding the many faces of child fostering in

Ghana. In R. Greeff (Ed.), Fostering kinship: An international

perspective on kinship foster care (pp. 99-112). Aldershot: Ashgate.

ILO (International Labour Organization), (2019). Methodology of the global

estimates of modern slavery: Forced labour and forced marriage.

Retrieved from https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/forced-labour/publica

tions/WCMS_586127/langen/index.htm.

International Labour Organization and Walk Free Foundation (2017). Global

estimates of modern slavery: Forced labour and forced marriage.

Retrieved from https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/dgreports/-

dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_575479

International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) (2002). Child Labour in

the cocoa sector of West Africa. A Synthesis of Findings in Cameroon,

Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Nigeria. Retrieved from http://www.globale

xchange .org/ campaigns/fairtrade/ cocoa /IITA Cocoa Research.pdf.

303
Ip, H. H. (2018). A Christian response to the conflicting relationship between

slave and master in a Christian household: Investigating Paul’s response

to the conflict between the economic relationship and the Christian

brotherhood’s relationship in the letter to Philemon. Scrinium, 14(1), pp.

25-36.

Jahnke, M. (2012). Revisiting design as a hermeneutic practice: An investigation

of Paul Ricoeur’s critical hermeneutics. Design Issues, 28(2), 30-40.

Jeal, R. R. (2010). Exploring Philemon: Freedom, brotherhood and partnership

in the new society. Atlanta: SBL Press.

Kennedy, G. A. (1984). New Testament interpretation through rhetorical

criticism. North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press.

Kern, P. (1998). Rhetoric and Galatians: Assessing an approach to Paul’s

epistle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kaiser, W., & Silva, M. (1994). An introduction to biblical hermeneutics. The

search for meaning. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Kartveit, M. (2015). Respondent for midway evaluation. Stavanger, Norway:

Misjonshøgskolen.

Kirillov, V. (2014). An analysis of rhetorical criticism as exemplified by

Hebrews Chapter 11. Theological Reflections, 15(1), 127-141.

Kreitzer, L. J. (2008). Philemon. Sheffield, London: Sheffield Phoenix Press.

Knox, J. (1963). Philemon among the letters of Paul: A new view of its place

and importance. Nashville: Abingdon.

Koester, H. (1982). Introduction to the New Testament: An essay in the early

history of the Canon. Chicago: University of Chicago.

304
Kulczyk, D. (2019). Freeing the child slaves of Lake Volta: CNN Freedom

Project.

Kuyini, A. B., Alhassan, A. R. Tollerud, I., Weld, H., & Haruna, I. (2009).

Traditional kinship foster care in northern Ghana: the experiences and

views of children, carers and adults in Tamale. Child & Family Social

Work, 14(4), 440–449.

Lampe, P. (2010). Affects and emotions in the rhetoric of Paul’s letter to

Philemon: A rhetorical-psychological interpretation. In D. F. Tolmie

(Ed.), Philemon in Perspective (pp. 61-77). New York: De Gruyter.

______. (2003). Paul, patrons and clients. In. J. P. Sampley (Ed.), Paul in the

Greco-Roman World (pp.501-519). New York: Trinity Press

International.

______. (1985). Keine “Sklavenflucht” des Onesimus. ZNW, 76, 135-137.

Leonardo, Z. (2003). Interpretation and the problem of domination: Paul

` Ricoeur’s hermeneutics. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 22(5),

329-350.

Loba-Mkole, J. C. (2008). Rise of intercultural Biblical exegesis in Africa,

HTS, 64(3), 1347-1364.

Lokkesmoe, R. (2015). Finding Onesimus: Recovering the story of a First

Century fugitive slave (Doctoral Thesis). University of Denver,

Colorado, USA. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/1039

Lohse, E. (1971). Colossians and Philemon: A Commentary on the epistles to

the Colossians and to Philemon. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Lohmeyer, E. (1964). Die Briefe an die Philipper, an die Kolosser und an

Philemon. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck.

305
Longenecker, R. N. (1999). New wine into fresh wineskins. Peabody, MA:

Hendrickson.

Louw, J. P. & Nida. E. A. (1989). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament:

Based on semantic domains. New York: United Bible Societies.

Lovejoy, P. E. (Ed.). (1981). The ideology of slavery in Africa. Beverly Hills,

USA.

Lukas, D. (2006). The message of Colossians and Philemon: Fullness and

freedom. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press.

Luther, M. (1931). Prologue to the letter of Saint Paul to Philemon. Weimar:

Böhlaus Nachfolger.

Marchal, J. A. (2011). The usefulness of an Onesimus: The sexual use of slaves

and Paul’s letter to Philemon. Journal of Biblical Literature, 130(4),

749-770.

Martin, D. B. (2012). New Testament history and literature. MI, New Haven:

Yale University.

______. (1982). Slavery as salvation. MI, New Haven, Yale University Press.

Martin, R. P. (1991). Colossians and Philemon. New Century Bible

Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Masenya, M., & Ngwa, K. (2018). What comes out of the African pots and

calabashes? In Masenya, M. & K. Ngwa (Eds.), Navigating African

biblical hermeneutics: Trends and themes from our pots and our

calabashes (pp. 1-20). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Mbuvi, A. (2017). African Biblical studies: An introduction to an emerging

discipline. Currents in Biblical Research 15(2), pp. 149-178.

306
_____. (2008). Rise of intercultural Biblical exegesis in Africa. HTS 64(3), pp.

1347-1364.

_____. (2007). The New Testament and intercultural exegesis in Africa. JSNT

30(1), 7-28. London, UK: SAGE Publications.

McKnight, S. (2017). The letter to Philemon. Grand Rapids, Michigan:

Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Mitchell, M. M. (1991). Paul and the rhetoric of reconciliation: An exegetical

investigation of the Language and composition of 1 Corinthians.

Louisville, KY: John Knox Press.

Murphy-O’Connor, J. (2008). St. Paul’s Ephesus. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical

Press.

Moo, J. M. (2008). The letter to the Colossians and to Philemon. Nottingham,

England: Apollos.

Morland, K. A. (1995). The rhetoric of curse in Galatians. Atlanta: Scholars.

Moule, C. F. D. (1968). The epistles of the Apostle Paul to the Colossians and

to Philemon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Muilenburg, J. (1968). Form criticism and beyond. JBL, 88, 1-18.

Ngunjiri, E. N. (2006). The management of female domestic workers in homes

of Christians from selected Mainline Churches within Roysambu

Constituency, Nairobi County, Kenya. (Unpublished Masters thesis ),

Kenyatta University, Kenya.

Nordling, J. G (1991). Onesimus fugitivus. A defense of the runaway slave

hypothesis in Philemon. JSNT, 41, 97-119.

307
Nsiah, A. M. (2017). Reading Galatians 4:21-31 as a covenantal discourse with

Ricoeur’s eyes: Implication for the Ghanaian context (Unpublished

Doctoral Thesis). University of Cape Coast, Ghana.

Nsiah, G. (2018). Living in an eschatological anticipation: An exegetical study

of 1Thessalonians 4:1-5:11 from Ghanaian perspectives. (Unpublished

Masters Thesis). University of Ghana, Legon.

Nthambury, Z. (2002). Biblical hermeneutics in the African Instituted Churches.

AICMAR Bulletin, 1(1), 12-23.

Ntreh, B. A. (2008). Sexual and domestic violence. Cape Coast, Ghana:

Hampton Press.

O’Brien, P. T. (1982). Colossians and Philemon.. Waco, TX: Word Books.

Olbricht, T. H. (1996). Classical rhetorical criticism and historical reconstruction:

Acritique In S. E. Porter & D. L. Stamps (Eds.), The Rhetorical

Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference.

Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Olinger, D. (1977). A redemptive-historical consideration of Philemon. NWTS,

12(1), 23-32.

Okure, T. (2009). Jesus and the Samaritan woman in Africa (JN. 4:1-42).

Theological Studies,70, 401-418.

______. (2000). First was the life, not the book. In T. Okure (Ed.), ‘… to cast

fire upon the earth’: Bible and mission collaborating in today’s

multicultural global context (pp. 94–227). Pietermaritzburg: Cluster

Publications.

Olson, S. N. (1985). Pauline expression of self-confidence in his addressees.

Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 47, 282-295.

308
Osborne, G. R. (2006). The hermeneutical spiral: A comprehensive introduction

to biblical interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Ossom-Batsa, G. (2007). African interpretation of the Bible in communicative

perspective. Ghana Bulletin of Theology, 2, 91-104.

Osungbeju, S. A. (2020). Friendship and betrayal: A narrative reading of

Matthew 26: 47-56 in the light of the concept of Oreodale of the Yoruba

people in Nigeria (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). University of

Kwazulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.

Palmer, R. E. (1969). Hermeneutics: Interpretation theory in Schleiermacher,

Dilthey, Heidegger and Gadamer. Evanston, Ill: North-western

University Press.

Patterson, O. (1998). Paul, slavery and freedom: Personal and socio-historical

reflections. In A. D. Callahan, R. A. Horsley & A. Smith, Semeia, 83,

263-279. Atlanta, GA: The Society of Biblical Literature.

______. (1982). Slavery and social death: A comparative study. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Perbi, A. A. (2004). A history of indigenous slavery in Ghana: From the 15th

to the 19th Century. Accra, Ghana: Sub-Saharan Publishers.

Peterson, N. R. (1985). Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and the sociology of

Paul’s narrative world. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

______. (1988). Philemon. In J. L. Mays (Ed.), Harper’s Bible Commentary

(pp. 1245–1248). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Plato. (1926). Laws (R. G. Bury, Trans.). Cambridge: Harvard University

Press.

309
Platvoet, J. & H.van Rinsum (2003) Is Africa incurably religious? Confessing

and contesting an invention. Exchange, 32(2), 123–153.

Pliny the Younger (1963). The letters of the Younger Pliny (B. Radice, Trans.).

The Penguin Classics. Baltimore: Penguin Books.

Pontifical Biblical Commission (1993). The interpretation of the Bible in the

Church. Rome: Vatican Press.

Porter, S. E., & Adams, S. A. (2010). Paul and the ancient letter form. Leiden:

Brill.

Porter, S. E., & Robinson, J. C. (2011). Hermeneutics: An introduction to

interpretive theory. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Powell, M. A. (1990). What is narrative criticism? Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Rapske, B. M. (1991). The prisoner Paul in the eyes of Onesimus. New

Testament Studies, 37, 187–203.

Ryan, J. (2005). Philippians and Philemon. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical

Press.

Quintilian (1920). Intitutio Oratoria (H. E. Butler, Trans.). Cambridge:

Harvard university press.

Regier, F & Regier, S. (1994). African nonformal theological education

research project. Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trust.

Rennie, D. L. (2012). Qualitative research as methodical hermeneutics.

American Psychological Association 17(3), 385–398.

Ricoeur, P. (1980). Essays on Biblical Interpretation. University of Michigan:

Fortress Press.

310
Robinson, S., & Kerr, R. (2015). Reflexive conversations: Constructing

Hermeneutic designs for qualitative management research. British

Journal of Management, 26, 777-790.

Robbins, V. K. (1999). Exploring the texture of texts: A Guide to socio-

rhetorical interpretation. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.

Russell, D. M. (1998). The strategy of a first-Century appeals: A discourse

reading of Paul’s epistle to Philemon. Journal of Translation and

Textlinguistics, 11, 224-285. Dallas, Texas: Summer Institute of

Linguistics, Inc.

Russell, W. B. (1993). Rhetorical analysis of the book of Galatians. Bibliotheca

Sacra, 150, 341-58.

Packer, J. I. (1983). Infallible scripture and the role of hermeneutics. In Carson,

D. A. & Woodbridge, J. D. (Eds.), Scripture and Truth, 325-356.

Perbi, A. A. (2004). A history of indigenous slavery in Ghana: From the 15th

to the 19th Century: Accra, Ghana: Sub-Saharan Publishers.

Schineller, P. (1990). A handbook. on inculturation. New York, NY: Paulist

Press.

Schleiermacher, F. (1966). The brief outline on the study of Theology. (T. N.

Tice, Trans.). Richmond: John Knox.

Schökel, L. A. (1998). A manual of hermeneutics. Sheffield: Sheffield

Academic Press.

Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the walls of resistance: Hidden transcripts.

New Haven & London: Yale University Press.

Schulenburg, R. S. (2013). Rethinking Paul’s rhetorical education Comparative

rhetoric and 2 Corinthians 10-13. Atlanta: SBL.

311
Schwandt, T. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schwartz-Shea, P. & Yanow, D. (2012). Interpretive research design concepts

and processes. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Sensbach, J. F. (2009). ‘Don’t teach my negroes to be pietists’: Pietism and

the roots of the Black Protestant Church. Pietism in Germany and

North America 1680 1820, 2(3), 183–198.

______. (2006). Rebecca’s revival: Creating Black Christianity in the Atlantic

World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Shaw, G, (1983). The cost of authority: Manipulation and freedom in the New

Testament. London: SCM Press.

Silverman, D. (2014). Interpreting qualitative data. London, UK: SAGE

Publications Inc.

Shklar, J. N. (2004). Squaring the hermeneutic circle. Social Research, 71, 655-

678.

Smith, D. G. (2010). Hermeneutic inquiry. In C. Kridel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of

curriculum studies (pp. 432-436). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Ste. Croix, G. E. M. (1981). The class struggle in the ancient Greek world:

From the archaic age to the Arab conquests. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell

University.

Steiner, G. (1979). “Critic”/ “Reader”. New Literary History 10, 423-452.

312
Still, T. D. (2009). Organizational structures and relational struggles among the

Saints: The establishment and exercise of authority within the Pauline

assemblies. In T. D. Still & D. G. Horrell. (Eds.), After the first urban

Christians: The social-scientific study of Pauline Christianity twenty-

five years later (pp. 79-98). New York, NY: Continuum.

Strabo. (1960). The Geography of Strabo (H. L. Jones, Trans.). Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Stowers, S. (1986). Greco-Roman letter writing and early Christianity.

Philadelphia: The Westminster.

Tate, W. R. (2008). Biblical interpretation: An integrated approach. Grand

Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

The International Corporate Accountability Roundtable and Focus on Labour

Exploitation (2019). Full disclosure: Towards better modern slavery

reporting. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/583f3

fca725e25fcd45aa446/t/5caf92140852294a37e36bb2/1555010068494/

ICAR+Full+Disclosure+Report_Apr10-WEB.pdf

Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools.

London: Psychology Press.

Thiselton, A. C. (2009). Hermeneutics: An introduction. Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans Publishing Company.

______. (1992). New horizons in hermeneutics: The theory and practice of

transforming Biblical reading. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan

Publishing House.

Thurén, L. (2000). Derhetorizing Paul: A dynamic perspective on Pauline

Theology and the Law. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

313
Turner, M. (2007). Human reconciliation in the New Testament with special

reference to Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians. European Journal of

Theology, 16(1), 37-47.

Tulane. (2015). 2013/14 Survey research on child labour in the West African

Cocoa Sector. New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from http://www.childlabo

rcocoa.org/images/Payson_Reports/TulaneUniversity SurveyResearch

onChildLaborintheCocoaSector—30July2015.pdf

Tutu, D. (1983). Hope and suffering: Sermons and speeches. Grand Rapids:

William B. Eerdmans.

Ukpong, J. (2002). Inculturation hermeneutics: An African approach to Biblical

interpretation. In W. Dietrich & U. Luz (Eds.), The Bible in a world

Context: An experiment in contextual hermeneutics (pp. 17–32). Grand

Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing.

______. (2001). Bible reading with a community of Bible readers. In M. Getui,

T. Malueke & J. Ukpong (Eds), Interpreting the New Testament in

Africa (pp. 188–212). Nairobi: Acton Press.

______. (2000). Development in Biblical interpretation in Africa. In G. West &

M. Dube (Eds.), The Bible in Africa (pp. 11–28). Leiden: Brill.

______. (1998). Models and methods of academic biblical interpretation in

Africa. The Journal of Inculturation Theology 4(1), 3-31.

______. (1996). The parable of the shrewd manager (Lk. 16:1-13): An Essay in

the Inculturation of Biblical Hermeneutics. Semeia, 7, 189-210.

______. (1995). Reading the Bible with African Eyes: Inculturation and

hermeneutics. Journal of Theology for Southern Africa, 91, 3-14.

314
United Nations. (2000). United Nations convention against transnational

organized crime and the protocols Thereto. Retrieved from https://ww

w.osce.org/odihr/19223?download=true.

______. (2014). Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms

of slavery, including its causes and consequences, Urmila Bhoola.

Doc. A/HRC/27/53. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBo

dies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session27/Documents/A-HRC-

27- 53_en.doc

Vos, C. S. de. (2001). Once a slave, always a slave? slavery, manumission and

relational pattern in Paul’s letter to Philemon. JSNT, 82, 89-105.

Wansink, C. S. (1996). Chained in Christ: The experience and rhetoric of Paul’s

imprisonments. England: Sheffield Academic Press.

Watson, D. F. (1997). Rhetoric, rhetorical criticism. In R. P. Martin & P. H.

Davids (Eds.), Dictionary of the Later NT& its Developments (pp. 556-

582). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Weima, J. A. D. (2010). Paul’s persuasive rose: An epistolary analysis of the

letter to Philemon. In D. F. Tolmie (Ed.). Philemon in Perspective (pp.

29-60). New York: De Gruyter.

Wendland, E. (2010). ‘You will do even more than I say’: On the rhetorical

function of stylistic form in the letter to Philemon. In D. F. Tolmie (Ed.),

Philemon in Perspective. New York: De Gruyter.

West, G. O. (2015). Reading the Bible with the marginalised: The value/s of

contextual Bible reading. Stellenbosch Theological Journal 1(2), 235–

261.

315
______. (2007). Reading Other-wise: Socially Engaged Biblical Scholars

Reading with their Local Communities. Society of Biblical literature.

Atlanta.

______. (2001). Contextual Bible Study in South Africa: A resource for

reclaiming and regaining land, dignity and identity. In M. T. Speckman

& L. T. Kaufmann (Eds.), Towards an Agenda for Contextual Theology:

Essays in Honour of Albert Nolan. Pietermaritzburg: Cluster Publication.

______. (1996). ‘Reading with’: An exploration of the interface between critical

and ordinary readings of the Bible: A response. Semeia, 73, 277–284.

______. (1995). Biblical hermeneutics of liberation: modes of reading the Bible

in the South African context (2nd ed.). Pietermaritzburg: Orbis Books

and Cluster Publications.

White, A. (2017). Visualising Paul’s appeal: A performance critical analysis

of the letter to Philemon. Oral History Journal of South Africa, 4(1),

259-306.

______. (1993). Contextual Bible Study. Pietermaritzburg: Cluster Publication.

Wiedemann, T. (2005). Greek & Roman slavery. New York, NY: Routledge.

Wilder, A. N. (1991). The Bible and the literary critic. Minneapolis, MN:

Fortress Press.

______. (1956). Scholars, theologians, and ancient rhetoric. JBL, 75(1), 1–11.

Wilson, A. N. (1997). Paul: The mind of the Apostle. London: Sinclair-

Stevenson.

______. (1992). The pragmatics of politeness and Pauline epistolography: A

case study of the letter to Philemon. Journal for the Study of the New

Testament, 48, 107–19.

316
Wilson, R. McL. (2014). A critical and exegetical commentary on Colossians

and Philemon. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

Wimsatt, W. K. (1976). The verbal icon: Studies in the meaning of poetry.

Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.

Winter, S. C. (1984). Methodological observations on a new interpretation of

Paul’s letter to Philemon. Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 39(3),

203-12.

______. (1987). Paul’s letter to Philemon. New Testament Studies, 33, 1–15.

Witherington, B. III. (2007). The letters to Philemon, the Colossians and the

Ephesians: A socio-rhetorical commentary on the Captivity Epistles.

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Wright, N. R. (2013). Return of the runaway? In N. T. Wright (Ed.), Paul and

the faithfulness of God (pp. 2-74). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.

______. (1986). The epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon.

Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.

Wroth, W. M. (1997). Rhetorical criticism, Hebrew bible. In J. Hayes (Ed.),

Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation: K – Z (pp. 395-345). Nashville:

Abingdon Press.

Wuellner, W. H. (1979). Greek rhetoric and Pauline argumentation. In W. R.

Schoedel & R. L. Wilken (Eds.), Early Christian Literature and the

Classical Intellectual Tradition (pp. 177-88). Paris: Éditions Beauchesne.

______. (1987). Where is rhetorical criticism taking us? CBQ, 49(4), 448-63.

317
Yanow, D. (2006). Neither rigorous nor objective? Interrogating criteria for

knowledge claims in interpretive science. In P. Schwartz-Shea & D.

Yanow (Eds.), Interpretation and method empirical research methods

and the interpretive turn (pp.51-67). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

Zimmerman, F. J. (2003). Cinderella goes to school: The effects of child

fostering on school enrolment in South Africa. Journal of Human

Resources, 38(3), 557–590.

318
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Interview Guide for Ghanaian Christian parents, employers, fictive

children and maids on the meaning they make of Philem

a) What is your general knowledge about the letter to Philemon?

b) What meaning(s) do you make from Philem regarding the welfare and

personal development of slaves?

c) How was Philemon expected to demonstrate clemency and reconciliation

toward the erred slave?

d) From the text, what steps were Philemon expected to implement to promote

the spirituality of his slave Onesimus?

e) What intimate terms and practices exhibited or recommended by Paul paved

ways for Onesimus to realise his true freedom and dignity? Moreover, what

aspects of Philemon’s character could have helped Onesimus to realise his

freedom?

319
 APPENDIX B

Interview Guide for Ghanaian Christian parents, employers, fictive

children and maids on the pragmatic application they make of Philem in

their contexts.

a) Are there some adjustment measures in your household or business

activity that promote the welfare and education of the maids or fictive

children? If yes, what ethical challenges do such adjustments pose to

your foremost reason for adopting or employing the fictive child or

maid? Do the people you are staying with prioritise your material and

educational welfare? (The last one was directed to the fictive

child/maid/labourer)

b) How do you react to the mistakes, wrong deeds, or mischievousness of

a fictive-child or maid as a Christian parent or business person? How do

you make peace with yourself, the maid, and God? How are/were you

treated in a problematic situation believed to have been brought by your

misdeed or wrongdoing? (The last one was directed to the fictive

child/maid/labourer).

c) Is the spirituality of maids/fictive children emphasized and promoted in

your household/enterprise? Do you see your spirituality taken into

consideration by your fictive parent/Christian employer in this

household? (The second question was directed to the fictive

child/maid/labourer)

d) Do you feel that your freedom and dignity are respected or trampled

upon by the people you’re staying with? (This was directed to the fictive

child/maid/labourer)

320